By Rick Anderson
Malaika Brooks was driving her 12-year-old son Jahrod to the African American Academy on Beacon Hill one morning in 2004 when a Seattle cop pulled her over. It was the beginning of a traffic infraction that has so far cost city taxpayers $345,000 in legal fees, and which left the then-pregnant Brooks with Taser scars and the determination to pursue an alleged police-brutality case for what appears to be a record seven years and counting.
Officer Juan Ornelas, who'd caught Brooks on radar, came to her window and said she'd been doing 32 in a 20-mph school zone. Brooks denied it, explaining he must have mistaken her vehicle for the black Honda that had been racing along in front of her. Brooks, then 34, handed her license to Ornelas as her son got out and walked on to school. Ornelas wrote the ticket and handed it to Brooks for her signature. She declined. Signing it, she mistakenly thought, would be an admission of guilt. Ornelas told her that if she didn't sign the traffic ticket, he would issue a criminal citation for refusing. She could then be arrested and taken to jail.
Brooks said she wasn't signing anything, but would accept the ticket otherwise. Ornelas then called Sgt. Steve Daman to the scene. Officer Donald Jones also showed up. When Brooks told the sergeant she wouldn't sign, Daman told Ornelas and Jones to "book her." Brooks was asked to step from the car. She refused. Jones then displayed a Taser stun gun and asked if she knew what it could do to her. Brooks told the officers she was pregnant. "How pregnant?" one asked. Her baby was due in two months, she said. She refused to step out.
After a discussion among the officers, Ornelas opened the driver's door, reached in and grabbed Brooks by the left arm as Jones put the device to Brooks' thigh in touch-stun mode and shocked her with 50,000 volts. She began honking her horn, screaming for help as she resisted. Jones quickly administered another shock to Brooks' arm, and she stopped blowing the horn. Then he shocked her a third time, in the neck, and Brooks fell over, unable to move. She was pulled out and held face-down on the street while being handcuffed. After an examination by fire-department medics, she was jailed for resisting arrest. The charges ultimately were dismissed.
Brooks, who two months later gave birth to a healthy baby girl, has been in court ever since, contending that the police used excessive force. Her case worked its way up to a federal appeals panel last year, where two of three judges ruled that the police had acted within the law and used proper force. But after another appeal, Brooks' attorney Eric Zubel was allowed to appear before the full 11-member court at a session in Pasadena, Calif., in December to re-argue the case. A decision is due soon.
Ted Buck, of law firm Stafford Frey Cooper, which has been contracting with the city for 40 years to defend Seattle police officers in court, says Brooks was Tasered not because she was speeding, "but because she committed two separate crimes," resisting and refusing to sign the criminal citation.
"If the police had done their job right," counters Zubel, "this never would have happened."
This debate might have ended long ago with the presence of video footage. But there was none. Seattle police began to install dashboard cameras in 2002, equipping just 16 of 220 vehicles. They have been adding them since, and now 275 vehicles sport the $5,000 cameras. The city is also contemplating equipping each officer with a lapel camera. But the police cruiser in Brooks' case was not outfitted with video, nor were any security cameras or witnesses with video-capable cell-phone cameras nearby to catch police face-planting a pregnant woman. Imagine that on TV.
"The problems we are addressing today have been around for a long time," says Zubel, an attorney for 37 years. "Had there been videotape of her arrest, there would have been a much better chance of settling the case. Tape is probably the biggest difference in these cases today."
Seattle Police Officers' Guild President Rich O'Neill says that of the 1,250 officers in the Seattle Police Department, 85 percent have never had a complaint filed against them, and only five had three or more complaints leveled against them in 2009. Use-of-force incidents have declined three years in a row, he says, which SPD confirms, dropping Seattle's force use to 20 percent less than the national average.
But that doesn't seem to be the public's perception of Seattle cops today, and that may have a lot to do with videotape. Nine out of 12 use-of-force cases occurring from 2008 through 2010—most of them still under police or court review—include video taken by car and security cameras or witnesses. Most of the current high-profile cases likely wouldn't be known to the public had it not been for the video revolution.
One of the first 2010 videotape cases—footage that some SPD officials attempted to keep from being aired on local TV—shows a prone 21-year-old Martin Monetti being kicked in the head last April by SPD officer Shandy Cobane. He told Monetti— mistakenly detained as a robbery suspect—that if he moved, "I'm going to beat the fucking Mexican piss out of you, homey."
Photographed by freelancer Jud Morris, the video eventually went viral, also showing officer Mary Woollum stepping on the legs of another suspect. But that was after KCPQ-TV, which works closely with local officers on its Washington's Most Wanted series, sat on the footage at the urging of police, according to Morris. He took the video to KIRO-TV, which ran it a few days later. KCPQ then ran its clip. Steve Kraycik, the station's news director, denied suppressing the film, then resigned.
The shooting death of 50-year-old John T. Williams, a Native American wood-carver, was only partly caught on videotape, but the audio was key, revealing the officer's commands and the timing of his shots. Williams was slain last August when confronted by Officer Ian Birk at the corner of Boren Avenue and Howell Street. Birk, 27, a cop just two years, told the inebriated Williams to drop the knife he carried, then, in four seconds, made his decision to shoot, firing four rounds. Though an SPD Firearms Review Board found Birk acted without justification, and only one of an eight-member inquest jury found Williams posed a threat to Birk, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, facing the legal hurdle of trying to prove the officer acted with malice, chose not to file charges last week. Hours later, Birk submitted his resignation.
Those and other videotaped incidents prompted the Department of Justice in January to announce a preliminary civil-rights investigation of SPD operations and procedures. The review, requested by the ACLU, the NAACP, and other community groups, began last week and includes FBI interviews with citizens, police, and City Hall officials. It is somewhat similar to the DOJ probe of the King County Jail in 2006, which led to a settlement and the ongoing monitoring of the jail to ensure prisoners' rights.
The Guild's O'Neill, among others, thinks the feds will not seek drastic changes, just recommend a course correction. But without pictures, would the DOJ even be here? And would the TV- and Internet-viewing public be reacting as angrily as it is in protests, online comments, and public hearings, some demanding the chief of police's head?
Clearly some are empowered by what they've seen on their screens. After Satterberg's no-charges announcement, family and supporters of Williams showed up at a press conference held by Mayor Mike McGinn, urging him to speak out. "Do you feel any shame?" asked one, any "outrage?"
"I'm not going to sit here and yell and scream about it," replied McGinn. But others have, including demonstrators who marched noisily through downtown that night, chanting "Lock 'em up, throw 'em in jail, killer cops get no bail!"
They and others think the videos amount to Cops Gone Wild. Which raises the question: Has there been an increase in the number of use-of-force incidents, or just in the number of incidents caught on camera? And are those videos giving a clear picture of what's happening between cops and citizens on Seattle's streets?
SPD's internal investigations unit, the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), hasn't yet released its 2010 annual report. But police attorney Buck, whose firm is representing a number of videotaped officers, including Birk, says, "I have seen no evidence that there has been any significant change in the number of suspect/police encounters in the past several years." (SPD statistics show 124 force complaints in 2007, 112 in 2008, and 79 in 2009.)
Yet there is a perception of an epidemic of sorts, he concedes. "First is the increase in the interactions caught on video, which brings such encounters more acutely to the mind of the average citizen. It's easier to skip over a written version of an event than it is to overlook video footage. Second, average citizens are not used to seeing real-life confrontations. We all try to avoid that sort of thing when possible, and most people simply never see actual physical fights or struggles."
The images are thus typically shocking, he says, and with a dozen SPD videos—nine of them involving minority suspects—available on the web, it's difficult not to perceive a streak of cop vigilantism in the Emerald City.
Jake K. Baijot-Clary, for example, was arrested for assault outside a Ballard bar last December. Clary, 21, was face down on the sidewalk, hands cuffed behind him, when SPD officer Garth Haynes put a foot on Clary's head, bouncing his face off the sidewalk. A cruiser videotape also shows another officer quickly pulling Haynes off to the side. Police are reviewing the case, and Haynes has been reassigned.
Then there's 47-year-old Daniel Macio Saunders. The Seattle man is suing the department after three officers used a Taser and allegedly beat him in 2009 with fists, batons, and flashlights at an SPD evidence facility after he was mistakenly released from jail. But was it a beating or a subduing? A video shows Saunders resisting arrest, suggesting he was punched and clubbed in response. Likewise, teenager Joseph (Joey) Wilson, a special-ed student, is suing SPD after suffering a broken nose and a concussion he says were caused by cops after a 2009 jaywalking incident. Police said Wilson was combative and refused to get out of the street, and video taken by a neighbor shows he struggled and resisted. The officers were later exonerated.
And was the case of 49-year-old John Kita brutality or necessary force? He claims in a federal case that he was beaten and kneed by officer Kevin Oshikawa-Clay after the officer discovered Kita fighting with a woman under I-5 in Seattle, an incident recorded on police video in February 2008. The officer, who was administratively exonerated, said Kita resisted and fought him and he had been required to use "minimal" force to take him down.
One of the most memorable recent videos shows 19-year-old Marilyn Ellen Levias after she was stopped for jaywalking in Rainier Valley last June by officer Ian Walsh. A friend, Angel L. Rosenthal, 17, then intervened, pushing the officer. Walsh responded by punching her in the face. The impression was that Walsh was the evildoer, yet Rosenthal later pled guilty to assault and apologized to the officer, who was cleared of wrongdoing.
Also among the video pantheon, Yvette Gaston, 42, then a county juvenile probation officer, was physically restrained by police in 2008 while trying to help a juvenile who'd been stopped by police. The city, which has cop-car video footage of the incident, claims officers were surrounded by an "unruly" crowd and that Gaston interfered. Charged with assault and obstruction, she was exonerated in municipal court, and has filed a federal lawsuit.
Additionally, 28-year-old Demetrius James claims in a federal lawsuit that he was Tasered and shot in 2009 after police approached him while he tried to drive out of a parking lot on South Jackson Street. An officer who felt James was trying to run him down fired his handgun five times, with one bullet striking James in the wrist. James jumped from the car and ran, but was ultimately apprehended. A video captured some of the events. James was charged with assault, and after two mistrials and 14 months in jail, pleaded down to a lesser charge.
Though some of the recent footage seems to favor the arrestees' claims, Buck's firm encourages cops to use video as much as possible. "Where videos are used extensively, the result has been overwhelmingly positive for line officers," he says. "The great majority of suspect complaints about officer conduct are at least embellished, if not outright fabricated. Video can reveal such claims for the phooey they often are."
But Jennifer Shaw, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Seattle chapter, says the recent clips are damning, showing a pattern of "repeat incidents of people of color ending up on the ground with a police officer over them . . . caught on videotape." Some are unquestionably brutality, she claims. "The easy ones are the ones that are caught on videotape. Those are the ones that are hard to deny. You have it before your eyes and we can't really be asked to distrust what we're seeing."
O'Neill, the guild leader, thinks that's overblown. "With the exception of the John T. Williams incident, not one of the individuals involved in the different video incidents sustained any serious injury," he says. "Does that not show that officers are using some form of restraint when applying force?"
He thinks too many people, including top cops and politicians, misinterpret the video snippets. Greg Nickels' administration had more experience dealing with the media, he says, while Mayor Mike McGinn's people "come out right away with a statement before they even bother to look at the situation in the proper context."
The press, he adds, "is also not blameless here. Why do they keep using the term 'stomp' or 'stomping' without detailing that the individual involved was not injured? If I truly stomped you, would you not expect to be injured?"
Former police chief Andrew J. Scott, now a Florida-based expert police consultant, says the increase in videotape is a good thing for law enforcement and the public at large. "There is no downside to having an in-court video," he says. "But one thing I also caution the public is that what they see is a snapshot, not the entire encounter," i.e., events such as the crime being committed, a foot or car chase, or other adrenalin-stoking prelims. "The public does not understand to any degree the appropriate application of the use of force. I get calls almost weekly where someone has been apparently hit or Tased, and some cases are valid, others are not."
Though most police work is routinely peaceful, use-of-force incidents, like fights at a hockey game, get viewers' attention. It's what the producers of the TV show Cops go looking for, says Scott, "and I would never have my law enforcement agency photographed by Cops. It scares the hell out of me. It always looks like excessive use of force. The public's view is skewed because they don't know what the law allows an officer to do, and what the full circumstances were."
When confronted during an arrest by a suspect attempting to flee or fight, police are advised to gain the upper hand quickly by meeting force with superior force—moving quickly and powerfully, shouting commands to subdue the subject. In a one-on-one event, such as the Williams shooting, officers are advised to call for backup and stay a safe distance from the subject. (Officer Birk was faulted for failing to do either: "We found very little to show he was within training and policy" rules, says Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer).
Even when done appropriately, arrests often result in complaints against police (the department is currently handling 500 complaints against its officers, dating back a year). And as the more recent footage of incidents shows, some officers, despite O'Neill's claims, inarguably used unnecessary force. An October incident, in which a teen with his hands up was kicked three times in the body and head by plainclothes officer James Lee, has resulted in a $450,000 lawsuit against Lee and the department. Lee has since admitted that he falsely claimed in his report to have first "struggled" with the youth before kicking him in self-defense.
Underscoring the problem, observers note, is SPD's fielding of green officers. One-third of the force has fewer than three years' experience (besides Birk, that group includes several other cops involved in the video incidents). About 250 veteran SPD officers are facing retirement, meaning more new recruits will be on duty soon.
Police consultant Ed Mamet, a retired New York City police captain, thinks that inexperience reflects a stature issue in Seattle, as elsewhere. "What I have observed in my work is that the quality of police officers today is not that of my generation," he tells us. "Many of these new officers lack the discipline and work ethic that those of my generation had, and these deficiencies manifest themselves in the way they treat members of the public."
Mike McGinn and Wes Uhlman have met twice now, sitting in the mayor's expansive offices on the seventh floor of City Hall and chatting about police turmoil, an issue they have in common. When Uhlman, now 75, was elected in 1969 as the youngest mayor (age 34) in Seattle history, SPD was in chaos as two grand juries began to investigate a police-payoff system that grew out of City Hall's quarter-century tolerance of vice. A corrupt departmental leadership was being marched off to court, and Uhlman began to bring in a series of visiting police chiefs, six in a year, to clean house.
McGinn, who took office in 2010, a year highlighted by a half-dozen incidents of alleged police brutality and preceded by another half-dozen incidents from 2008–2009 under Nickels and then–Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, wanted to know Uhlman's secrets. McGinn had picked a new chief from within, 30-year SPD veteran John Diaz, in the middle of a growing uproar. By January, when the two mayors first met, the DOJ was preparing to review SPD's practices as more incidents emerged, and it was probably going to get worse before it got better.
At McGinn's invitation, Uhlman—an attorney, as is McGinn—gave the new mayor a candid assessment. "I didn't use the words 'trigger-happy,' " Uhlman says of his talk with McGinn, "but I said the department's procedure on use of deadly force is in serious question."
Uhlman described for McGinn a contextual scenario of the events, noting they had been preceded by the Halloween 2009 murder of Seattle police officer Tim Brenton, followed a month later by Maurice Clemmons' bloody-Sunday massacre of four officers in Lakewood. "Cops face death on a daily basis. It's part of the job to be apprehensive," Uhlman says. "But I said the issue, which has to be dealt with in training, is restraint. In these incidents, some of the actions are just inexcusable."
The two politicians also discussed how to finesse change at the department. "There will be difficult personnel decisions that have to be made, which will not be readily accepted by the department at first. But Mike has political cover with this investigation," Uhlman says, alluding to the federal review. "It's fresh and new, and the FBI will probably come out with some incisive kinds of suggestions and findings, and that might be the best time for him to make any difficult moves in the department."
After their meetings, McGinn announced this month at a public forum on police accountability that the department was undertaking a complete review of its training practices, then cited his sessions with Uhlman. "Any time I speak to Wes," McGinn said, "I feel a lot better."
McGinn tells people he worries about a departmental "culture" that tolerates excessive force, and, if it does exist, he's determined to root it out. "Cultures take time to build up and they take time to break down," he says. Meanwhile, City Council member Tim Burgess, a former cop, has no easy answer for what fosters "a police culture of 'us versus them,' " he says, and believes it's a mistake to think "a few tweaks or new rules and training changes will resolve all the public's concerns."
Some of the crowd attending a recent police-accountability forum made that discontent clear, jeering and interrupting panel speakers, one exclaiming of the video incidents, "These were not fucking accidents!" Two demonstrators were asked to leave.
The guild's O'Neill says the problem in large part lies with those who resist arrest. Instead, they should "obey the command" even if the cops are wrong. In other words, don't get mad, get even. "What is the alternative?" he asks. "To be allowed to disobey the order, actively resist, and then when the situation is escalated, absolve the subject completely for any part in causing the situation to escalate? I hope that is never the situation we put our officers in."
But Nicole Gaines, president of the Loren Miller Bar Association for people of color, thinks that is asking less of cops and more of citizens. Officers, she says, "are expected to act and respond in a manner that is higher than those they are necessarily protecting. To ask the public to always take the high road when dealing with the officers, when it's the officer's responsibility to be the professional, is absolutely unacceptable."
It's ironic that, in the midst of more video exposure, one of the complaints about SPD is that it lacks transparency. Gaines, for one, thinks police disciplinary reports should be as accessible as, say, attorney disciplinary reports. "As an attorney," she says, "if I do something wrong, you can go on the bar's website and see everything I did." The City Council is given access to police disciplinary reports, she adds, so why shouldn't the public be?
According to the OPA, of 198 complaint investigations completed in 2009, only 12 percent were sustained. But what, really, is known about the process and facts of those cases? Onetime deputy mayor Ann Levinson, a civilian outside auditor of the OPA—which replaced the even more secretive Internal Investigations unit in 1999—agrees that access to reports is difficult (there are monthly summaries on OPA's website), and concedes the unit does not "do a very good job of communicating to the public." They're working to change that, she adds.
This blue-wall mentality concerns former Seattle U.S. Attorney Mike McKay, long a police ally. Now in private practice with his brother John, also an ex–U.S. Attorney, McKay says he's been stonewalled by SPD in attempts to pry records from the department in a case of alleged brutality. "Despite what the [state] Open Records Act requires, SPD simply refuses to hand over some records," he says. "They cite 'privacy issues.' They force you to sue them. Most people just shrug and walk away; they can't afford a lawsuit. I see this as an institutional effort to protect officers. I would hope the DOJ will be looking into the department's efforts at a cover-up in these cases."
The department has also been caught failing to turn over its videos to defendants in criminal trials. Seattle artist Maikoiyo Alley-Barnes received a $185,000 settlement in 2007 from the department after filing a federal civil-rights lawsuit over his 2005 arrest. He was badly beaten, and photos of his bloodied, swollen, puffed-up face made him a poster boy for police brutality. Dash-cam audio/video of the incident in a Capitol Hill alley revealed blows being struck and a woman saying "Oh, my God!" while Alley-Barnes pleads with officers to "please stop kicking me!"
Police withheld the video until three days into Alley-Barnes' municipal court trial, leading to dismissal of the case. Then–Chief Kerlikowske, now President Obama's drug czar, refused to discipline any of the officers even though punishment had been recommended by an internal investigator.
Seattle cyber-security expert Eric Rachner also sued police last year for withholding video of his arrest during a drunken game of street golf. Rachner refused to show an officer identification and was arrested for obstruction; police said they no longer had a video of the incident when Rachner asked about it. But after charges were dropped, he learned the video was still in SPD possession, and he and the department settled a lawsuit out of court in October.
Video, like electronic and paper reports, falls under the public-records act, and McKay thinks "Seattle is one of the worst" U.S. cities for wrongly withholding such evidence. He recently got into it with the mayor's office, claiming Chief Diaz was engaged in a "full-blown cover-up" within the department. In the wake of media reports, mayoral attorney Carl Marquardt responded in an e-mail that McKay's charges were flimsy: "John Diaz is an honorable guy. You called him a liar on the front page of the paper, and you've got nothing?"
McKay represents 19-year-old Evan Sargent, who claims he was threatened by an armed off-duty police officer, Don Waters, 46, in a 2009 road-rage incident. The two met in an alley near the West Seattle Junction that Waters was using as a shortcut, but was obstructed by Sargent's parked pickup. An upset Waters allegedly smashed Sargent's side mirror with his fist, and a frightened Sargent grabbed a baseball bat to fend him off. Waters got a handgun from his car and pointed it at Sargent, finally identifying himself as a police officer. Sargent was then arrested for investigation of assault on a police officer.
In a letter to one of his successors, U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan, McKay cited the case as another reason why the DOJ should be investigating Seattle police. Durkan, whose office says she took the letter under advisement, worked with McKay to help set guidelines for the OPA in 1999. McKay says SPD improperly tried to protect Waters by attempting to falsely charge Sargent with a felony—lending credibility to Waters' claims—but prosecutors declined. Seattle city attorney Pete Holmes wouldn't file misdemeanor charges either.
McKay says Waters lied about the run-in, and that police dismissed evidence showing Waters was the aggressor. That Diaz may have approved of this was "outrageous," McKay wrote to Durkan. "If the unlawful actions of ranking SPD officers following Sargent's unlawful arrest serve as an example," he continued, "SPD may have acted to conceal other civil-rights violations to shield officers from consequences for their wrongdoing."
Mayoral attorney Marquardt explains, "It looks like [the cop and civilian] both behaved badly. He [Sargent] admitted he took checked swings, and the city attorney couldn't file against either one. The police auditors took a look at it, civilians reviewed it, and the complaint was not sustained. It's not like someone had a finger on the scale." Marquardt wouldn't comment on a rumor that McGinn's office mulled over filing a bar complaint against McKay for his "cover-up" comments, but a mayoral source who requested anonymity said "McKay would have more credibility if he wasn't trying to roll us for a couple hundred thousand for his client." Says McKay: "I don't think they're happy that we're pressing this case, not walking away like so many people do because they can't get the records."
Of course, McKay wishes he had some videotape to work with. He agrees with Zubel, Malaika Brooks' attorney, who says it can make or break a case. "Police accountability," says Zubel, "has certainly improved with the advent of tape. And the public is able to see more of how their police department is functioning."
Scott, the consultant who represents both police and defendants in court, says that while video can be helpful, SPD has "an obligation to educate the public about their procedures, to explain that they did everything right, or wrong. They're competing with these videos. An agency has to be extremely transparent with the community. There can't be doubts. I don't think that's the case today, or we likely wouldn't be having this discussion."
And, as the video hits seem to keep on coming, it's far from over.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Atlanta Settles Cell Phone Video Lawsuit
Marlon Kautz said he was trying to record Atlanta police doing their
jobs when they started yelling at him and snatched his camera. Its
something he'd done before for his group, CopWatch of East Atlanta.
"I was pretty scared," said Kautz. "I was trying to remain calm
because I know in a situation like this, the police are blatantly
breaking the law and violating my rights."
In April of 2010, Kautz saw police dogs searching for drugs at a
store in Little Five Points, so he got out his cell phone and pressed
record. But this time he got a confrontation he wasn't expecting.
"They told me that I wasn't allowed to record them and that I needed
to stop," said Kautz. "One officer took his hand and physically
grabbed the camera."
The video survived on the cell phone, but Kautz said it's terribly
corrupted because police almost ruined the video when they tried to erase it.
"If there hadn't been the video it would have been another case of my
word against a police officer," said Kautz.
So, Kautz sued and he won a $40,000 judgment from the city of Atlanta
. He said he hopes police will learn from their mistake.
"If you see police messing with someone on the street, take out your
phone and record what's going on. That really sends a message to
police that the people are paying attention to the work they are
doing and we want them to be on their best behavior and not violating
people's rights," said Kautz.
Atlanta police wouldn't go on camera to discuss the lawsuit but
released a statement to CBS Atlanta News.
"This matter was referred to our Office of Professional Standards for
investigation and all three officers were disciplined. Two of the
officers received oral admonishments for failing to take the
appropriate actions, and a third for failure to supervise. Commanders
have made it clear that Atlanta police officers in the field should
not interfere with a citizen's right to film them while they work in
public areas," said police spokeswoman Kimberly Maggart.
Kautz plans to spend some of his award on new camera equipment for
his CopWatch program.
jobs when they started yelling at him and snatched his camera. Its
something he'd done before for his group, CopWatch of East Atlanta.
"I was pretty scared," said Kautz. "I was trying to remain calm
because I know in a situation like this, the police are blatantly
breaking the law and violating my rights."
In April of 2010, Kautz saw police dogs searching for drugs at a
store in Little Five Points, so he got out his cell phone and pressed
record. But this time he got a confrontation he wasn't expecting.
"They told me that I wasn't allowed to record them and that I needed
to stop," said Kautz. "One officer took his hand and physically
grabbed the camera."
The video survived on the cell phone, but Kautz said it's terribly
corrupted because police almost ruined the video when they tried to erase it.
"If there hadn't been the video it would have been another case of my
word against a police officer," said Kautz.
So, Kautz sued and he won a $40,000 judgment from the city of Atlanta
. He said he hopes police will learn from their mistake.
"If you see police messing with someone on the street, take out your
phone and record what's going on. That really sends a message to
police that the people are paying attention to the work they are
doing and we want them to be on their best behavior and not violating
people's rights," said Kautz.
Atlanta police wouldn't go on camera to discuss the lawsuit but
released a statement to CBS Atlanta News.
"This matter was referred to our Office of Professional Standards for
investigation and all three officers were disciplined. Two of the
officers received oral admonishments for failing to take the
appropriate actions, and a third for failure to supervise. Commanders
have made it clear that Atlanta police officers in the field should
not interfere with a citizen's right to film them while they work in
public areas," said police spokeswoman Kimberly Maggart.
Kautz plans to spend some of his award on new camera equipment for
his CopWatch program.
Friday, February 11, 2011
City Settles Suit in Death of an Inmate
By DANIEL EDWARD ROSEN
Published: February 9, 2011
The City of New York has agreed to pay over half a million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a South Carolina man who was killed while in custody on Rikers Island in 2009.
The man, Clarence Mobley, 60, was found dead in a cell at the Anna M. Kross Center; his death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner’s office.
Rudy Velez, a lawyer for Mr. Mobley’s family, said the $525,000 settlement, which was finalized in Bronx County Surrogate’s Court last month, had brought little solace to relatives.
“In no uncertain terms,” Mr. Velez said, “they felt the officers murdered Mr. Mobley.”
No criminal charges have been filed against the correction officers implicated in the lawsuit, which had sought $10 million, said Steven Reed, a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney’s office. The status of the investigation into the death was unclear on Wednesday.
Mr. Mobley’s family accused correction officers of failing to provide Mr. Mobley immediate medical attention after he was restrained by three officers.
Correction officials at the time said Mr. Mobley, 60, had been awaiting transfer to Bellevue Hospital Center for psychiatric treatment when he hit an officer in the face with a meal tray. He was in custody on attempted burglary charges.
After Mr. Mobley, who was 5-foot-7 and 115 pounds, was subdued, he was moved to a separate holding cell; he did not receive medical attention, Mr. Velez said. Forty-five minutes later, he was found unresponsive by another inmate who had been mopping the floor. Mr. Mobley was pronounced dead at the scene.
The cause of death, the medical examiner’s office said, was a liver laceration caused by blunt trauma to the torso.
Mr. Mobley’s daughter, Ayanna Castro, said: “I think my father’s case was brushed underneath the rug and it wasn’t handled properly at all. I think that the city didn’t do a thorough investigation and they allowed these correction officers to kill my father.”
“The settlement doesn’t matter,” Mrs. Castro, 39, added. “What matters is that these guys are walking around and are going home to their families every night and my girls don’t have their grandfather. The settlement doesn’t mean anything.”
An inmate should receive medical attention after an altercation with another inmate or a correction officer, said Stephen J. Morello, a spokesman for the Department of Correction. He would not specify the time frame in which assistance was supposed to be provided.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Mobley’s death have been puzzling for his family.
Mr. Mobley left South Carolina for New York City on April 25, 2009, to attend a family funeral with his son and daughter. But he seemed to have disappeared; relatives learned of his death in a newspaper article.
Published: February 9, 2011
The City of New York has agreed to pay over half a million dollars to settle a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a South Carolina man who was killed while in custody on Rikers Island in 2009.
The man, Clarence Mobley, 60, was found dead in a cell at the Anna M. Kross Center; his death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner’s office.
Rudy Velez, a lawyer for Mr. Mobley’s family, said the $525,000 settlement, which was finalized in Bronx County Surrogate’s Court last month, had brought little solace to relatives.
“In no uncertain terms,” Mr. Velez said, “they felt the officers murdered Mr. Mobley.”
No criminal charges have been filed against the correction officers implicated in the lawsuit, which had sought $10 million, said Steven Reed, a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney’s office. The status of the investigation into the death was unclear on Wednesday.
Mr. Mobley’s family accused correction officers of failing to provide Mr. Mobley immediate medical attention after he was restrained by three officers.
Correction officials at the time said Mr. Mobley, 60, had been awaiting transfer to Bellevue Hospital Center for psychiatric treatment when he hit an officer in the face with a meal tray. He was in custody on attempted burglary charges.
After Mr. Mobley, who was 5-foot-7 and 115 pounds, was subdued, he was moved to a separate holding cell; he did not receive medical attention, Mr. Velez said. Forty-five minutes later, he was found unresponsive by another inmate who had been mopping the floor. Mr. Mobley was pronounced dead at the scene.
The cause of death, the medical examiner’s office said, was a liver laceration caused by blunt trauma to the torso.
Mr. Mobley’s daughter, Ayanna Castro, said: “I think my father’s case was brushed underneath the rug and it wasn’t handled properly at all. I think that the city didn’t do a thorough investigation and they allowed these correction officers to kill my father.”
“The settlement doesn’t matter,” Mrs. Castro, 39, added. “What matters is that these guys are walking around and are going home to their families every night and my girls don’t have their grandfather. The settlement doesn’t mean anything.”
An inmate should receive medical attention after an altercation with another inmate or a correction officer, said Stephen J. Morello, a spokesman for the Department of Correction. He would not specify the time frame in which assistance was supposed to be provided.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Mobley’s death have been puzzling for his family.
Mr. Mobley left South Carolina for New York City on April 25, 2009, to attend a family funeral with his son and daughter. But he seemed to have disappeared; relatives learned of his death in a newspaper article.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Review cases of tortured suspects
We’d like to say the sorry saga of Police Cmdr. Jon Burge and his torture crew is behind us, but it’s not.
While some men who were tortured have been freed, 19 others remain behind bars though they say that Burge and his associates coerced their confessions. And there may be even more tortured inmates whose cases have yet to come to light.
We can’t say exactly what should be done about this, but we know it cannot be ignored. By means of evidentiary hearings or some other judicial undertaking, each of these cases must be re-examined. We can’t take the chance that even one innocent man remains behind bars simply because incriminating statements were beaten out of him.
Last June, a federal jury found Burge guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying when he denied that he had tortured suspects at Area 2 Police headquarters or had seen others commit torture. That verdict — and the voluminous evidence that emerged in the long legal battle leading up to it — established beyond doubt that suspects were subjected to such outrages as electric shocks to the genitals, suffocation and loaded guns to the head to get them to say what the police wanted to hear.
If only for the sake of the integrity of our criminal justice system, we can’t allow such extracted confessions to be the last word in any case.
Four men who had been tortured testified against Burge at his trial. Others have been granted new hearings. But still others who long have said they were tortured into confessing remain behind, unable to get their stories told before a judge.
It’s important to note that these are not opportunists who suddenly came forward after Burge was convicted. They complained to authorities or their lawyers or raised the issue in court many years ago.
Normally, it would be too late to review some of these complaints. Filing deadlines and other requirements are built into the system to prevent interminable appeals. But wise judges and prosecutors could agree to sweep away these obstacles so that justice can proceed.
We say this knowing how difficult it may be to sort out the truth in each instance.
In some cases, police officers may plead the Fifth Amendment, for fear of incriminating themselves, rather than testify as to the circumstances surrounding the confessions. In others, a judge may be left with no evidence other than the unrebutted claims of the defendant.
And in those cases where a new trial looks justified, witnesses and evidence may long ago have disappeared.
These are serious concerns. If in fact some of the inmates are guilty, as seems likely, nobody wants to see them set loose. But the whole record of recent wrongful convictions in Illinois suggests that others might well be innocent, and every effort must be made to ensure they get their day in court.
The legal concept of “harmless error” holds that a conviction may be upheld even if mistakes were made, provided the rest of the evidence is sufficient. But a confession extracted through torture is never a harmless error, and a conviction based even in part on such a confession cannot be allowed to stand.
While some men who were tortured have been freed, 19 others remain behind bars though they say that Burge and his associates coerced their confessions. And there may be even more tortured inmates whose cases have yet to come to light.
We can’t say exactly what should be done about this, but we know it cannot be ignored. By means of evidentiary hearings or some other judicial undertaking, each of these cases must be re-examined. We can’t take the chance that even one innocent man remains behind bars simply because incriminating statements were beaten out of him.
Last June, a federal jury found Burge guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying when he denied that he had tortured suspects at Area 2 Police headquarters or had seen others commit torture. That verdict — and the voluminous evidence that emerged in the long legal battle leading up to it — established beyond doubt that suspects were subjected to such outrages as electric shocks to the genitals, suffocation and loaded guns to the head to get them to say what the police wanted to hear.
If only for the sake of the integrity of our criminal justice system, we can’t allow such extracted confessions to be the last word in any case.
Four men who had been tortured testified against Burge at his trial. Others have been granted new hearings. But still others who long have said they were tortured into confessing remain behind, unable to get their stories told before a judge.
It’s important to note that these are not opportunists who suddenly came forward after Burge was convicted. They complained to authorities or their lawyers or raised the issue in court many years ago.
Normally, it would be too late to review some of these complaints. Filing deadlines and other requirements are built into the system to prevent interminable appeals. But wise judges and prosecutors could agree to sweep away these obstacles so that justice can proceed.
We say this knowing how difficult it may be to sort out the truth in each instance.
In some cases, police officers may plead the Fifth Amendment, for fear of incriminating themselves, rather than testify as to the circumstances surrounding the confessions. In others, a judge may be left with no evidence other than the unrebutted claims of the defendant.
And in those cases where a new trial looks justified, witnesses and evidence may long ago have disappeared.
These are serious concerns. If in fact some of the inmates are guilty, as seems likely, nobody wants to see them set loose. But the whole record of recent wrongful convictions in Illinois suggests that others might well be innocent, and every effort must be made to ensure they get their day in court.
The legal concept of “harmless error” holds that a conviction may be upheld even if mistakes were made, provided the rest of the evidence is sufficient. But a confession extracted through torture is never a harmless error, and a conviction based even in part on such a confession cannot be allowed to stand.
Madigan sues to stop Burge pension
By FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter / fmain@suntimes.com
Former Chicago Police Department detective and commander Jon Burge leaves his sentencing hearing at the Federal Building on Thursday, January 20. 2011. | Richard A. Chapman~Sun-Times
Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed suit Monday to immediately strip convicted former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge of his $3,000-a-month pension.
Madigan said a police pension board was wrong to let Burge keep it in light of his conviction and sentencing for lying about the torture of crime suspects.
Burge was sentenced last month to 4 1/2 years in prison after being convicted in June of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying in his testimony in a civil lawsuit that he never participated in or witnessed the physical abuse of crime suspects while a Chicago cop.
The Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago considered taking away Burge’s pension. But that effort failed on a 4-4 vote. spurring protests by police-torture victims and others.
Burge’s supporters on the pension board argued that his felony conviction involved his testimony after he retired, so it wasn’t, as state law specificies, directly “relating to, arising out of or in connection” with his official duties.
They were wrong, Madigan argues in the lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Burge and the police pension board.
In addition to halting Burge’s pension, she’s asking a judge to order Burge to repay any pension benefits he’s been paid since his Jan. 21 sentencing.
“Jon Burge forfeited his right to a public pension when he lied about his knowledge of and participation in the torture and physical abuse of suspects,” Madigan said. “It’s this type of criminal conduct by a public servant that our pension forfeiture laws were designed to discourage. The public should never have to pay for the retirement of a corrupt public official.”
Former Chicago Police Department detective and commander Jon Burge leaves his sentencing hearing at the Federal Building on Thursday, January 20. 2011. | Richard A. Chapman~Sun-Times
Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed suit Monday to immediately strip convicted former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge of his $3,000-a-month pension.
Madigan said a police pension board was wrong to let Burge keep it in light of his conviction and sentencing for lying about the torture of crime suspects.
Burge was sentenced last month to 4 1/2 years in prison after being convicted in June of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying in his testimony in a civil lawsuit that he never participated in or witnessed the physical abuse of crime suspects while a Chicago cop.
The Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago considered taking away Burge’s pension. But that effort failed on a 4-4 vote. spurring protests by police-torture victims and others.
Burge’s supporters on the pension board argued that his felony conviction involved his testimony after he retired, so it wasn’t, as state law specificies, directly “relating to, arising out of or in connection” with his official duties.
They were wrong, Madigan argues in the lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Burge and the police pension board.
In addition to halting Burge’s pension, she’s asking a judge to order Burge to repay any pension benefits he’s been paid since his Jan. 21 sentencing.
“Jon Burge forfeited his right to a public pension when he lied about his knowledge of and participation in the torture and physical abuse of suspects,” Madigan said. “It’s this type of criminal conduct by a public servant that our pension forfeiture laws were designed to discourage. The public should never have to pay for the retirement of a corrupt public official.”
Friday, February 4, 2011
EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations
News Update by Mark Rumold
EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 - 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed.
Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds:
• Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board
• Reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant
• Indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11
EFF's report stems from analysis of nearly 2,500 pages of FBI documents, consisting of reports of FBI intelligence violations made to the Intelligence Oversight Board — an independent, civilian intelligence-monitoring board that reports to the President on the legality of foreign and domestic intelligence operations. The documents constitute the most complete picture of post-9/11 FBI intelligence abuses available to the public. Our earlier analysis of the documents showed the FBI's arbitrary disclosure practices.
EFF's report underscores the need for greater transparency and oversight in the intelligence community. As part of our ongoing effort to inform the public and elected officials about abusive intelligence investigations, we are distributing copies of the report to members of Congress.
EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 - 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau’s intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed.
Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds:
• Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board
• Reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant
• Indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11
EFF's report stems from analysis of nearly 2,500 pages of FBI documents, consisting of reports of FBI intelligence violations made to the Intelligence Oversight Board — an independent, civilian intelligence-monitoring board that reports to the President on the legality of foreign and domestic intelligence operations. The documents constitute the most complete picture of post-9/11 FBI intelligence abuses available to the public. Our earlier analysis of the documents showed the FBI's arbitrary disclosure practices.
EFF's report underscores the need for greater transparency and oversight in the intelligence community. As part of our ongoing effort to inform the public and elected officials about abusive intelligence investigations, we are distributing copies of the report to members of Congress.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Antioch to pay $750,000 to settle civil rights lawsuit with ex-S.F. officer
By Paul Burgarino
Contra Costa Times
ANTIOCH -- The city has agreed to pay a former San Francisco police inspector $750,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Marvetia Lynn Richardson sued Antioch in U.S. District Court in July 2008, saying Antioch officers illegally broke into her house on Mokelumne Drive in June 2007, shocked her with a Taser after a dispute with a tenant she was evicting, and took her to jail on suspicion of resisting arrest.
Antioch has denied any wrongdoing, saying the police department had probable cause to enter Richardson's house and did not use excessive force in making an arrest.
The lawsuit also contended that the incident was part of efforts by Antioch police to harass African-American residents and drive them out of certain neighborhoods, a charge the city also denies.
Attorneys for Richardson and Antioch declined to comment on the settlement, which prohibits them from discussing the terms.
The decision to settle a case is often made by joint risk pools for public agencies rather than by the defendant itself -- particularly when significant attorneys' fees are included, City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland said in a written statement.
"Such settlements reflect economic realities rather than any change of position or belief on the part of the defendant," she said.
Police were called to Richardson's home after midnight on June 7, 2007, by Bridget Reed, who was renting rooms for herself and teenage daughter and was in the
process of being evicted. Reed had called 911 to complain about noise; Richardson was at home entertaining two female friends and their children.
After talking to Richardson inside the house, the officers were outside when they heard screams and loud sounds indicating a struggle or fight, according to court documents. Reed and her daughter ran outside, saying that the teen daughter of one of Richardson's guests had threatened to shoot them.
Richardson says officers broke down her front door, and confronted her as she stood in her bedroom doorway. She was calmly answering officers' questions when she was suddenly shocked with a Taser, according to the lawsuit.
Charges against Richardson were dismissed in 2008 after a Contra Costa County judge ruled that police entered the house illegally, according to the lawsuit.
Richardson is scheduled to be in Contra Costa Superior Court in Pittsburg at 8 a.m. Feb. 7 to petition the court to find that she was factually innocent.
"She wants it erased so it's as if it never happened. She is and has been the victim," said Matt Fregi, Richardson's criminal attorney who did not represent her in the lawsuit.
A lawsuit by Richardson in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging she was wrongfully fired -- in part because of the Antioch incident -- is ongoing.
Staff writer Malaika Fraley contributed to this story. Contact Paul Burgarino at 925-779-7164.
Contra Costa Times
ANTIOCH -- The city has agreed to pay a former San Francisco police inspector $750,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Marvetia Lynn Richardson sued Antioch in U.S. District Court in July 2008, saying Antioch officers illegally broke into her house on Mokelumne Drive in June 2007, shocked her with a Taser after a dispute with a tenant she was evicting, and took her to jail on suspicion of resisting arrest.
Antioch has denied any wrongdoing, saying the police department had probable cause to enter Richardson's house and did not use excessive force in making an arrest.
The lawsuit also contended that the incident was part of efforts by Antioch police to harass African-American residents and drive them out of certain neighborhoods, a charge the city also denies.
Attorneys for Richardson and Antioch declined to comment on the settlement, which prohibits them from discussing the terms.
The decision to settle a case is often made by joint risk pools for public agencies rather than by the defendant itself -- particularly when significant attorneys' fees are included, City Attorney Lynn Tracy Nerland said in a written statement.
"Such settlements reflect economic realities rather than any change of position or belief on the part of the defendant," she said.
Police were called to Richardson's home after midnight on June 7, 2007, by Bridget Reed, who was renting rooms for herself and teenage daughter and was in the
process of being evicted. Reed had called 911 to complain about noise; Richardson was at home entertaining two female friends and their children.
After talking to Richardson inside the house, the officers were outside when they heard screams and loud sounds indicating a struggle or fight, according to court documents. Reed and her daughter ran outside, saying that the teen daughter of one of Richardson's guests had threatened to shoot them.
Richardson says officers broke down her front door, and confronted her as she stood in her bedroom doorway. She was calmly answering officers' questions when she was suddenly shocked with a Taser, according to the lawsuit.
Charges against Richardson were dismissed in 2008 after a Contra Costa County judge ruled that police entered the house illegally, according to the lawsuit.
Richardson is scheduled to be in Contra Costa Superior Court in Pittsburg at 8 a.m. Feb. 7 to petition the court to find that she was factually innocent.
"She wants it erased so it's as if it never happened. She is and has been the victim," said Matt Fregi, Richardson's criminal attorney who did not represent her in the lawsuit.
A lawsuit by Richardson in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging she was wrongfully fired -- in part because of the Antioch incident -- is ongoing.
Staff writer Malaika Fraley contributed to this story. Contact Paul Burgarino at 925-779-7164.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Minorities Bear The Brunt Of Illinois' War On Drugs
A new report confirms that nonwhite residents in Illinois bear the brunt of the war on drugs, from arrests to sentencing.
From arrests to sentencing, the war on drugs in Illinois hammers minority communities especially hard, a new analysis called the "Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study" shows.
One of the top -- and most distressing findings -- in the report is that nonwhites were arrested for drug-related offenses at rates that outstrip their share of the population in 62 out the state's 102 counties. Nearly three-quarters of the arrests were related to drug possession.
The trend was especially pronounced in "jurisdictions with smaller populations of nonwhite residents," according to the study. In downstate Iroquois County, for example, nonwhites made up 5 percent of the population in 2008 but represented 36 percent of those arrested on drug charges in 2005.
The problem exists in urban areas as well: while 46 percent Cook County's more than 5.2 million residents in '08 were nonwhite, they comprised 76 percent of drug arrestees three years earlier.
The study shows that disparities in who is arrested for drug-related crime extend into court systems, as well.
While cautioning that some of the data is incomplete, the report nonetheless found that statewide, African American defendants facing a Class 4 drug possession charge were sentenced to jail at a rate nearly five times greater than whites arrested for the same offense. Class 4 possession is the least severe of Illinois' felony drug charges.
"The disproportionate odds of nonwhites moving from the arrest stage to later stages in the process (specifically, prosecuting and sentencing to prison) are only partially explained by the racial imbalances at arrest and remain after statistically accounting for the selection bias at each stage," the report states. The arrest patterns then make it more likely that nonwhites go to jail, as they are stuck with a criminal history. "These unequal outcomes in the court system compound the disparities at arrest in a vicious cycle inasmuch as the probability of arrest increases with the presence of a criminal record."
Other new findings in the study include:
In 2005 in Cook County, home of the largest population of black residents in the state, African-Americans who were arrested only for a Class 4 felony drug possession charge were eight times more likely to go to prison than their white counterparts;
The proportion of nonwhites arrested for Class 4 drug possession more than doubled their representation in Illinois' general population, at 66 percent to 27 percent, in 2005;
The Cook County criminal court system is "inundated" with low-level drug cases, with 72 percent of defendants in a sample of cases from 2005 having a drug charge;
The study is primarily based on information about all 42,297 drug arrests in 2005 that researchers obtained from the Illinois State Police. Information about Cook County drug sentencing is based on a random sample of 5,000 drug and non-drug criminal cases adjudicated in its courts that same year.
In spite of arrest and sentencing disparities, major racial and ethnic groups use drugs at roughly the same rates. "[W]ithin racial/ethnic categories, the percentages of illicit drug use in the past year are highly comparable for whites, African Americans, and Latinos in Illinois: 2 percent, 1 percent, and 1 percent, respectively (illicit drugs without marijuana) and 4 percent, 5 percent, and 2 percent, respectively (illicit drugs with marijuana)," according to the report.
The findings in the Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study confirm a disturbing reality about drug-related arrests and incarcerations that a number of other reviews have also found over the years.
In Illinois and other states, the consequences of mass drug-related incarceration are well documented, and include poorer health, a lack of marriageable men, and a loss of economic opportunities, among other social strains, in minority communities.
Ten recommendations are included in the report.
Members of the general assembly, the report says, should be able to attach a "Racial & Ethnic Impact Statement" to criminal justice-related bills and policies; a new task force to collect better data is called for; and "drug-free zone laws" must reviewed to gauge their effectiveness in protecting children from drugs.
Other recommendations would help those arrested but not convicted for drug crimes and ex-offenders who have left the prison system.
The State of Illinois should prohibit including "drug-related arrests that do not result in conviction in criminal histories collected for employment-related purposes," one of the recommendations states. And some arrestees should have their records automatically expunged and sealed for Class 4 felony possession charges or convictions.
In terms of the state's fiscal policy toward incarceration, the state needs to "establish budget policy and priorities to promote full utilization of existing diversion programs or alternatives to incarceration," including a program called Adult Redeploy. To quote at length from the discussion in the study about this final point:
"[The recommendation] reflects a philosophical shift toward prioritizing limited state resources to addressing the causes of criminal behavior and the attendant disproportionate impacts on minority communities, and away from paying for the results of not addressing that behavior. This shift has been adopted by 14 states currently pursuing a strategy known as Justice Reinvestment, wherein external consultants work closely with state policymakers to advance fiscally sound, data-driven criminal justice policies to break the cycle of recidivism, avert prison expenditures, and make communities safer.
Malcolm Young, a criminal justice researcher at Northwestern University who did not participate in putting the disproportionate justice study together, called its findings important and unfortunate, but not surprising. He said that more needs to be done at the front-end to keep drug users out of the criminal justice system.
That isn't an issue for wealthier people. Users from high-income communities have multiple -- "10 or 15 or 20" -- opportunities to pay for private drug treatment programs and then fall off the wagon, Young said. Their financial asset allow them to get help then relapse without involving the police or the courts. Poor users, often minorities, don't have those options.
A court like Cook County's drug court might extend a few chances for a low-income user the police arrest to seek public treatment, Young said, but if there are multiple relapses his or her problem then becomes criminalized. "The response system very quickly becomes the criminal justice system," he said.
From arrests to sentencing, the war on drugs in Illinois hammers minority communities especially hard, a new analysis called the "Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study" shows.
One of the top -- and most distressing findings -- in the report is that nonwhites were arrested for drug-related offenses at rates that outstrip their share of the population in 62 out the state's 102 counties. Nearly three-quarters of the arrests were related to drug possession.
The trend was especially pronounced in "jurisdictions with smaller populations of nonwhite residents," according to the study. In downstate Iroquois County, for example, nonwhites made up 5 percent of the population in 2008 but represented 36 percent of those arrested on drug charges in 2005.
The problem exists in urban areas as well: while 46 percent Cook County's more than 5.2 million residents in '08 were nonwhite, they comprised 76 percent of drug arrestees three years earlier.
The study shows that disparities in who is arrested for drug-related crime extend into court systems, as well.
While cautioning that some of the data is incomplete, the report nonetheless found that statewide, African American defendants facing a Class 4 drug possession charge were sentenced to jail at a rate nearly five times greater than whites arrested for the same offense. Class 4 possession is the least severe of Illinois' felony drug charges.
"The disproportionate odds of nonwhites moving from the arrest stage to later stages in the process (specifically, prosecuting and sentencing to prison) are only partially explained by the racial imbalances at arrest and remain after statistically accounting for the selection bias at each stage," the report states. The arrest patterns then make it more likely that nonwhites go to jail, as they are stuck with a criminal history. "These unequal outcomes in the court system compound the disparities at arrest in a vicious cycle inasmuch as the probability of arrest increases with the presence of a criminal record."
Other new findings in the study include:
In 2005 in Cook County, home of the largest population of black residents in the state, African-Americans who were arrested only for a Class 4 felony drug possession charge were eight times more likely to go to prison than their white counterparts;
The proportion of nonwhites arrested for Class 4 drug possession more than doubled their representation in Illinois' general population, at 66 percent to 27 percent, in 2005;
The Cook County criminal court system is "inundated" with low-level drug cases, with 72 percent of defendants in a sample of cases from 2005 having a drug charge;
The study is primarily based on information about all 42,297 drug arrests in 2005 that researchers obtained from the Illinois State Police. Information about Cook County drug sentencing is based on a random sample of 5,000 drug and non-drug criminal cases adjudicated in its courts that same year.
In spite of arrest and sentencing disparities, major racial and ethnic groups use drugs at roughly the same rates. "[W]ithin racial/ethnic categories, the percentages of illicit drug use in the past year are highly comparable for whites, African Americans, and Latinos in Illinois: 2 percent, 1 percent, and 1 percent, respectively (illicit drugs without marijuana) and 4 percent, 5 percent, and 2 percent, respectively (illicit drugs with marijuana)," according to the report.
The findings in the Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study confirm a disturbing reality about drug-related arrests and incarcerations that a number of other reviews have also found over the years.
In Illinois and other states, the consequences of mass drug-related incarceration are well documented, and include poorer health, a lack of marriageable men, and a loss of economic opportunities, among other social strains, in minority communities.
Ten recommendations are included in the report.
Members of the general assembly, the report says, should be able to attach a "Racial & Ethnic Impact Statement" to criminal justice-related bills and policies; a new task force to collect better data is called for; and "drug-free zone laws" must reviewed to gauge their effectiveness in protecting children from drugs.
Other recommendations would help those arrested but not convicted for drug crimes and ex-offenders who have left the prison system.
The State of Illinois should prohibit including "drug-related arrests that do not result in conviction in criminal histories collected for employment-related purposes," one of the recommendations states. And some arrestees should have their records automatically expunged and sealed for Class 4 felony possession charges or convictions.
In terms of the state's fiscal policy toward incarceration, the state needs to "establish budget policy and priorities to promote full utilization of existing diversion programs or alternatives to incarceration," including a program called Adult Redeploy. To quote at length from the discussion in the study about this final point:
"[The recommendation] reflects a philosophical shift toward prioritizing limited state resources to addressing the causes of criminal behavior and the attendant disproportionate impacts on minority communities, and away from paying for the results of not addressing that behavior. This shift has been adopted by 14 states currently pursuing a strategy known as Justice Reinvestment, wherein external consultants work closely with state policymakers to advance fiscally sound, data-driven criminal justice policies to break the cycle of recidivism, avert prison expenditures, and make communities safer.
Malcolm Young, a criminal justice researcher at Northwestern University who did not participate in putting the disproportionate justice study together, called its findings important and unfortunate, but not surprising. He said that more needs to be done at the front-end to keep drug users out of the criminal justice system.
That isn't an issue for wealthier people. Users from high-income communities have multiple -- "10 or 15 or 20" -- opportunities to pay for private drug treatment programs and then fall off the wagon, Young said. Their financial asset allow them to get help then relapse without involving the police or the courts. Poor users, often minorities, don't have those options.
A court like Cook County's drug court might extend a few chances for a low-income user the police arrest to seek public treatment, Young said, but if there are multiple relapses his or her problem then becomes criminalized. "The response system very quickly becomes the criminal justice system," he said.
Monday, January 31, 2011
75-Year Prison Sentence for Taping the Police? The Absurd Laws That Criminalize Audio and Video Recording in America
By Lauren Kelley
Last January, Michael Allison, a 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport, Illinois, went to court to protest what he saw as unfair treatment from local police officers. Allison is an auto enthusiast who likes to tinker with cars, several of which he keeps on his mother's property in the neighboring town of Robinson. Because both towns have "eyesore," or abandoned property, rules that require inoperable cars to be either registered or kept in a garage (which neither house had, and which Allison could not afford to build), Allison's cars were repeatedly impounded by local officials.
Allison sued the city of Bridgeport in 2007, arguing that the eyesore law violated his civil rights and that the city was merely trying to bilk revenues from impound fees. This apparently enraged the local police, who, Allison alleges, began harassing him at home and threatening arrest when Allison refused to get rid of his cars.
Shortly before his January 2010 court date, Allison requested a court reporter for the hearing, making it clear to the county clerk that if one was not present he would record the proceedings himself.
With the request for a court reporter denied, Allison made good on his promise to bring his own audio recorder with him to the courthouse. Here's what happened next, as reported by Radley Bilko in the latest issue of Reason magazine:
Just after he walked through the courthouse door the next day, Allison says Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Harrell then asked him if it was turned on. Allison said it was. Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.
Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000.
That's up to 75 years in prison for breaking a law Allison did not know existed, and which he violated in the name of protecting himself from what he saw as an injustice.
As Bilko points out, Allison's case may be extreme, but he is hardly alone in facing outsized punishment for efforts to combat police wrongdoing. Take Christopher Drew and Tiawanda Moore, two Chicagoans highlighted in the New York Times last week. Drew, a 60-year-old artist, faces up to 15 years in prison for using a digital video recorder during his December 2009 arrest for selling art without a permit. Drew had planned on getting arrested in protest of the permit law, which he saw as a violation of artists' rights. He was unaware that filming the ordeal was illegal.
Likewise, Moore, a 20-year-old Southside resident, did not know it was illegal to record a conversation she had with two police officers last August, and she too faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years for doing so. Moore's case is especially troubling because she was in the process of filing a complaint with the two officers about a third officer, who Moore alleges sexually harassed her in her home. She told the Times that she "was only trying to make sure no other women suffered at the hands of the officer" by making the recording. Presumably, she was also trying to protect herself in case she faced another lewd advance. Instead, the officers tried to talk her out of filing her complaint and then slapped her with eavesdropping charges when they found out her Blackberry was recording.
These stories all highlight Illinois' draconian eavesdropping laws, which, ever since a privacy provision was overturned in 1994, have made it illegal to record audio of an individual without his or her consent. Carrying a sentence of between four and 15 years, the laws in the state are some of the harshest in the nation.
Illinois isn't the only state waging a war on citizens with recording devices. Across the country, the growing accessibility of recording devices (like smart phones) and media-sharing sites (like YouTube) is prompting officials to dredge up dusty old eavesdropping and wiretapping laws, leading to "a legal mess of outdated, loosely interpreted statutes and piecemeal court opinions that leave both cops and citizens unsure of when recording becomes a crime," according to Bilko.
The good news is that few people have actually been convicted under these laws for documenting police wrongdoing; neither Michael Allison nor Christopher Drew nor Tiawanda Moore are likely to go to prison for the recordings they made. The bad news, though, is that these laws are being used to intimidate the nation's citizens, making them afraid to stand up against police officers and other officials who are acting illegally and/or immorally. As long as no one is convicted, the law goes unchallenged, notes Adam Schwartz, senior staff counsel for the ACLU of Illinois.
The intimidation techniques extend to still photographers as well, as documented by Carlos Miller on the blog Photography is Not a Crime, which catalogs rights violations against people with cameras and teaches citizens about their legal rights to photograph people and places. (Things that can almost always be photographed from a public place, "despite popular opinion," according to Miller's Web site: criminal activities, law enforcement officers, industrial facilities.) Miller himself has been illegally arrested and had his photos deleted for taking pictures of police officers.
Although he's always beaten his cases in court, Miller recognizes that coming out on top after the fact isn't good enough. "There’s this idea that just because charges are dropped, there’s no harm,” Miller told Reason. “But that isn’t right. There’s definitely harm when someone is illegally arrested and has to spend a night or more in jail. Your life is disrupted. You now have legal bills to deal with. There’s also harm when a cop wrongly tells someone they can’t photograph or record. He’s intimidating them into giving up their rights.”
Some of the most widely viewed posts on Miller's blog -- "St. Louis Cop Beats Man Down in Youtube Video," "Surveillance video once again shines light on Philadelphia PD corruption" -- are testament to why citizens need the explicit legal right to document officers' wrongdoings. Without the recordings of these events (and many, many others like them), justice probably never would have been realized, and the truth never brought to light. Unless we overturn the nation's most over-the-top eavesdropping laws, our legal system will continue to obstruct, rather than promote, justice.
Last January, Michael Allison, a 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport, Illinois, went to court to protest what he saw as unfair treatment from local police officers. Allison is an auto enthusiast who likes to tinker with cars, several of which he keeps on his mother's property in the neighboring town of Robinson. Because both towns have "eyesore," or abandoned property, rules that require inoperable cars to be either registered or kept in a garage (which neither house had, and which Allison could not afford to build), Allison's cars were repeatedly impounded by local officials.
Allison sued the city of Bridgeport in 2007, arguing that the eyesore law violated his civil rights and that the city was merely trying to bilk revenues from impound fees. This apparently enraged the local police, who, Allison alleges, began harassing him at home and threatening arrest when Allison refused to get rid of his cars.
Shortly before his January 2010 court date, Allison requested a court reporter for the hearing, making it clear to the county clerk that if one was not present he would record the proceedings himself.
With the request for a court reporter denied, Allison made good on his promise to bring his own audio recorder with him to the courthouse. Here's what happened next, as reported by Radley Bilko in the latest issue of Reason magazine:
Just after he walked through the courthouse door the next day, Allison says Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Harrell then asked him if it was turned on. Allison said it was. Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.
Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000.
That's up to 75 years in prison for breaking a law Allison did not know existed, and which he violated in the name of protecting himself from what he saw as an injustice.
As Bilko points out, Allison's case may be extreme, but he is hardly alone in facing outsized punishment for efforts to combat police wrongdoing. Take Christopher Drew and Tiawanda Moore, two Chicagoans highlighted in the New York Times last week. Drew, a 60-year-old artist, faces up to 15 years in prison for using a digital video recorder during his December 2009 arrest for selling art without a permit. Drew had planned on getting arrested in protest of the permit law, which he saw as a violation of artists' rights. He was unaware that filming the ordeal was illegal.
Likewise, Moore, a 20-year-old Southside resident, did not know it was illegal to record a conversation she had with two police officers last August, and she too faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years for doing so. Moore's case is especially troubling because she was in the process of filing a complaint with the two officers about a third officer, who Moore alleges sexually harassed her in her home. She told the Times that she "was only trying to make sure no other women suffered at the hands of the officer" by making the recording. Presumably, she was also trying to protect herself in case she faced another lewd advance. Instead, the officers tried to talk her out of filing her complaint and then slapped her with eavesdropping charges when they found out her Blackberry was recording.
These stories all highlight Illinois' draconian eavesdropping laws, which, ever since a privacy provision was overturned in 1994, have made it illegal to record audio of an individual without his or her consent. Carrying a sentence of between four and 15 years, the laws in the state are some of the harshest in the nation.
Illinois isn't the only state waging a war on citizens with recording devices. Across the country, the growing accessibility of recording devices (like smart phones) and media-sharing sites (like YouTube) is prompting officials to dredge up dusty old eavesdropping and wiretapping laws, leading to "a legal mess of outdated, loosely interpreted statutes and piecemeal court opinions that leave both cops and citizens unsure of when recording becomes a crime," according to Bilko.
The good news is that few people have actually been convicted under these laws for documenting police wrongdoing; neither Michael Allison nor Christopher Drew nor Tiawanda Moore are likely to go to prison for the recordings they made. The bad news, though, is that these laws are being used to intimidate the nation's citizens, making them afraid to stand up against police officers and other officials who are acting illegally and/or immorally. As long as no one is convicted, the law goes unchallenged, notes Adam Schwartz, senior staff counsel for the ACLU of Illinois.
The intimidation techniques extend to still photographers as well, as documented by Carlos Miller on the blog Photography is Not a Crime, which catalogs rights violations against people with cameras and teaches citizens about their legal rights to photograph people and places. (Things that can almost always be photographed from a public place, "despite popular opinion," according to Miller's Web site: criminal activities, law enforcement officers, industrial facilities.) Miller himself has been illegally arrested and had his photos deleted for taking pictures of police officers.
Although he's always beaten his cases in court, Miller recognizes that coming out on top after the fact isn't good enough. "There’s this idea that just because charges are dropped, there’s no harm,” Miller told Reason. “But that isn’t right. There’s definitely harm when someone is illegally arrested and has to spend a night or more in jail. Your life is disrupted. You now have legal bills to deal with. There’s also harm when a cop wrongly tells someone they can’t photograph or record. He’s intimidating them into giving up their rights.”
Some of the most widely viewed posts on Miller's blog -- "St. Louis Cop Beats Man Down in Youtube Video," "Surveillance video once again shines light on Philadelphia PD corruption" -- are testament to why citizens need the explicit legal right to document officers' wrongdoings. Without the recordings of these events (and many, many others like them), justice probably never would have been realized, and the truth never brought to light. Unless we overturn the nation's most over-the-top eavesdropping laws, our legal system will continue to obstruct, rather than promote, justice.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Family of victim killed by since-fired LAPD officer awarded $1.7 million
After deciding this week that a former Los Angeles police officer fired for dishonesty was liable for killing a man, a federal jury Wednesday awarded the victim's family $1.7 million.
Joseph Cruz killed Mohammad Usman Chaudhry early on a March morning in 2008, when Cruz and his partner encountered the 21-year-old autistic man lying in the bushes alongside a Hollywood apartment building.
Since the killing, Cruz has insisted that Chaudhry tried to attack him with a knife and that he fired his gun in self-defense. On Monday, however, after four days of testimony, the jury rejected Cruz’s account when it returned a unanimous verdict finding that the ex-officer had used excessive force and acted in “a reckless, oppressive or malicious manner” when he shot Chaudhry.
During the trial, lawyers for the Chaudhry family presented evidence aimed at putting doubt in the minds of the jurors over Cruz’s account. Testing on the knife that Cruz said Chaudhry had used, for example, found one person’s DNA profile on the handle and blade but showed that the DNA was not Chaudhry’s.
Also, after Cruz claimed he had never met Chaudhry before the shooting, a man testified that he had been present on multiple occasions when Cruz confronted Chaudhry and called him by name.
After the verdict, the jury was asked to decide how much money, if any, to award Chaudhry’s parents. Attorneys representing Cruz and the city of Los Angeles had tried to limit the size of the award by arguing that Chaudhry had had a frayed relationship with his parents that lessened their suffering.
Lawyers for the family countered that the parents cared deeply for their son, despite the strain on the relationship caused by his autism.
“We’re very pleased. I think the jury saw the truth in this case,” said Olu Orange, an attorney for the family. “This was about restoring the honor of this family’s son.”
Orange called on the city, and specifically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to forgo an appeal.
“In light of the findings of the jury on the facts of this case, I hope Mayor Villaraigosa would apologize to the Chaudhry family on behalf of the city, accept the verdict and not put the family through further trauma over the loss of their son," he said. "If the city doesn’t, they’ll just be spending more taxpayer money to defend a dishonest cop.”
John Franklin, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, declined to comment on the verdict or whether the city would appeal. Peter J. Ferguson, who represented Cruz, could not be reached immediately for comment.
The award punctuates the awkward role the city played in the case. After the shooting, the LAPD fired Cruz for dishonesty in an unrelated case. At the time, lawyers for the city argued that Cruz had destroyed his credibility.
During the trial, however, the LAPD and city attorney’s office tried to persuade the jury that Cruz was, in fact, credible and that his account of the shooting should be believed.
Joseph Cruz killed Mohammad Usman Chaudhry early on a March morning in 2008, when Cruz and his partner encountered the 21-year-old autistic man lying in the bushes alongside a Hollywood apartment building.
Since the killing, Cruz has insisted that Chaudhry tried to attack him with a knife and that he fired his gun in self-defense. On Monday, however, after four days of testimony, the jury rejected Cruz’s account when it returned a unanimous verdict finding that the ex-officer had used excessive force and acted in “a reckless, oppressive or malicious manner” when he shot Chaudhry.
During the trial, lawyers for the Chaudhry family presented evidence aimed at putting doubt in the minds of the jurors over Cruz’s account. Testing on the knife that Cruz said Chaudhry had used, for example, found one person’s DNA profile on the handle and blade but showed that the DNA was not Chaudhry’s.
Also, after Cruz claimed he had never met Chaudhry before the shooting, a man testified that he had been present on multiple occasions when Cruz confronted Chaudhry and called him by name.
After the verdict, the jury was asked to decide how much money, if any, to award Chaudhry’s parents. Attorneys representing Cruz and the city of Los Angeles had tried to limit the size of the award by arguing that Chaudhry had had a frayed relationship with his parents that lessened their suffering.
Lawyers for the family countered that the parents cared deeply for their son, despite the strain on the relationship caused by his autism.
“We’re very pleased. I think the jury saw the truth in this case,” said Olu Orange, an attorney for the family. “This was about restoring the honor of this family’s son.”
Orange called on the city, and specifically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to forgo an appeal.
“In light of the findings of the jury on the facts of this case, I hope Mayor Villaraigosa would apologize to the Chaudhry family on behalf of the city, accept the verdict and not put the family through further trauma over the loss of their son," he said. "If the city doesn’t, they’ll just be spending more taxpayer money to defend a dishonest cop.”
John Franklin, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, declined to comment on the verdict or whether the city would appeal. Peter J. Ferguson, who represented Cruz, could not be reached immediately for comment.
The award punctuates the awkward role the city played in the case. After the shooting, the LAPD fired Cruz for dishonesty in an unrelated case. At the time, lawyers for the city argued that Cruz had destroyed his credibility.
During the trial, however, the LAPD and city attorney’s office tried to persuade the jury that Cruz was, in fact, credible and that his account of the shooting should be believed.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
No First Amendment Right to Tape Cops in Public?
In Illinois, police may audio record any conversation in a public place, but no one else may record their conversations—among themselves or with citizens they interact with, no matter how audibly—in a public place; to do so is a felony. A federal judge last week dismissed a First Amendment challenge to this law brought by the ACLU.
She found no constitutional right to record conversations loud enough to be heard in public areas. CorrespondingCalifornia law appears to protect such recording.
Radley Balko reports for Reason.com.
Federal District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon has dismissed (PDF) an ACLU challenge to the Illinois law that makes recording someone in a public space without their permission a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. As I've reported here, the law is used almost exclusively against people who attempt to record on-duty police officers. The ACLU was seeking declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the police from arresting workers and volunteers who planned to record police at an anti-war protest this spring.
As I wrote in my feature story, "The War on Cameras", there's a strong argument that this is a newsgathering function protected by the First Amendment. But Conlon doesn't agree.
The ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury. The ACLU cites neither Supreme Court nor Seventh Circuit authority that the First Amendment includes a right to audio record. Cf. Potts v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.1997) (“there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event” ’). Amendment would therefore be futile....
The ACLU intends to audio record police officers speaking with one another or police officers speaking with civilians. The ACLU’s program only implicates conversations with police officers. The ACLU does not intend to seek the consent of either police officers or civilians interacting with police officers. Police officers and civilians may be willing speakers with one another, but the ACLU does not allege this willingness of the speakers extends to the ACLU, an independent third party audio recording conversations without the consent of the participants. The ACLU has not met its burden of showing standing to assert a First Amendment right or injury....
Amendment would be futile. The ACLU has not alleged a constitutional right or injury under the First Amendment. Rather, the ACLU proposes an unprecedented expansion of the First Amendment . . .
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, commenter "Jeff" makes a good point:
Why don’t we look at the issue from the other side? Is it within the state’s power to prohibit a citizen from recording a law enforcement officer in this way?
I know we tend to think of rational basis review as a rubber stamp, but these laws seem to be a stretch under any standard. Of course, it’s almost impossible to argue that this isn’t rationally related to some asserted purpose, but one could argue that the asserted purpose is merely pretextual, and that the real purpose is impermissible.
The government can certainly provide a rational basis for forbidding the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. But it would be interesting to hear the state's rationality for requiring the consent of anyone whose voice might be picked up before making recording in a public space. What interest does that law serve? Certainly not privacy, given that there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
I suspect we'll be seeing more from this case, as well as more challenges to the Illinois law, particularly if/when Christopher Drew and Michael Allison become the first people convicted under it. To this point, the law has been used primarily to harass and arrest people who record police in public. The charges are inevitably dropped or downgraded to misdemeanors before the case gets to trial.
MORE: Just to clarify, the Illinois law only applies to audio recording. So security cameras, which generally don't include audio, aren't in violation of the law. If you used an application on your smart phone that only recorded video, you could also presumably record police without being arrested under this law, although they could always arrest you for interfering with a police officer or some other catch-all charge. The Illinois law also includes an exception for law enforcement, so police recordings without permission of the person being recorded are permissible.
She found no constitutional right to record conversations loud enough to be heard in public areas. CorrespondingCalifornia law appears to protect such recording.
Radley Balko reports for Reason.com.
Federal District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon has dismissed (PDF) an ACLU challenge to the Illinois law that makes recording someone in a public space without their permission a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. As I've reported here, the law is used almost exclusively against people who attempt to record on-duty police officers. The ACLU was seeking declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the police from arresting workers and volunteers who planned to record police at an anti-war protest this spring.
As I wrote in my feature story, "The War on Cameras", there's a strong argument that this is a newsgathering function protected by the First Amendment. But Conlon doesn't agree.
The ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury. The ACLU cites neither Supreme Court nor Seventh Circuit authority that the First Amendment includes a right to audio record. Cf. Potts v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.1997) (“there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event” ’). Amendment would therefore be futile....
The ACLU intends to audio record police officers speaking with one another or police officers speaking with civilians. The ACLU’s program only implicates conversations with police officers. The ACLU does not intend to seek the consent of either police officers or civilians interacting with police officers. Police officers and civilians may be willing speakers with one another, but the ACLU does not allege this willingness of the speakers extends to the ACLU, an independent third party audio recording conversations without the consent of the participants. The ACLU has not met its burden of showing standing to assert a First Amendment right or injury....
Amendment would be futile. The ACLU has not alleged a constitutional right or injury under the First Amendment. Rather, the ACLU proposes an unprecedented expansion of the First Amendment . . .
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, commenter "Jeff" makes a good point:
Why don’t we look at the issue from the other side? Is it within the state’s power to prohibit a citizen from recording a law enforcement officer in this way?
I know we tend to think of rational basis review as a rubber stamp, but these laws seem to be a stretch under any standard. Of course, it’s almost impossible to argue that this isn’t rationally related to some asserted purpose, but one could argue that the asserted purpose is merely pretextual, and that the real purpose is impermissible.
The government can certainly provide a rational basis for forbidding the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. But it would be interesting to hear the state's rationality for requiring the consent of anyone whose voice might be picked up before making recording in a public space. What interest does that law serve? Certainly not privacy, given that there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
I suspect we'll be seeing more from this case, as well as more challenges to the Illinois law, particularly if/when Christopher Drew and Michael Allison become the first people convicted under it. To this point, the law has been used primarily to harass and arrest people who record police in public. The charges are inevitably dropped or downgraded to misdemeanors before the case gets to trial.
MORE: Just to clarify, the Illinois law only applies to audio recording. So security cameras, which generally don't include audio, aren't in violation of the law. If you used an application on your smart phone that only recorded video, you could also presumably record police without being arrested under this law, although they could always arrest you for interfering with a police officer or some other catch-all charge. The Illinois law also includes an exception for law enforcement, so police recordings without permission of the person being recorded are permissible.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Ohio woman assaulted by prison guard
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in support of an Elyria woman who was sexually assaulted twice by an Ohio prison guard, then punished for reporting the attacks.
Michelle Ortiz considers this a moral victory, not only for herself but for all women who have been assaulted or punished by the people paid by the public to protect them. Ortiz was sexually assaulted in prison while serving a 12-month sentence in a domestic violence case in which she fought off her physically abusive husband with a knife.
"If this helps one woman that this has ever happened to or that it could ever happen to, then I am just so happy," she said. "Not for the money, but for the verdict."
The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, that would have denied Ortiz her verdict and a $625,000 judgment. The high court decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has implications for how government attorneys handle lawsuits filed against public employees.
But the case has only narrow ramifications for the general public, despite the compelling story behind it, according to attorneys for the state of Ohio as well as outside legal experts.
"The Supreme Court case was solely about a procedural issue; it involved which procedures to use to challenge certain categories of legal rulings," Lisa Peterson Hackley, spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office, said in an e-mail statement. "While we're disappointed in the outcome, it's always good when courts clear up unclear rules."
Andrew Pollis, a visiting assistant law professor at Case Western Reserve University who assisted Ortiz's lead attorney, David Mills, in the case, agreed that the case could be interpreted to have a limited impact.
"To be honest, this is a narrow procedural issue, so it isn't some new ruling about the way prison officials must treat inmates, although you could tell from the way Justice Ginsburg wrote the ruling that she was displeased with the way prison officials treated Michelle Ortiz," Pollis said.
Ortiz was in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in November 2002 when she reported that a male guard fondled her breasts and warned, "I'll get you tomorrow, watch." He did, returning when Ortiz was asleep to molest her again.
When Ortiz told other inmates about the attack, she was shackled and sent to solitary confinement. The state said this was for her own protection, as well as for the sake of preserving the integrity of their investigation while they looked into Ortiz's claims.
Ortiz sued, and the prison's case manager and an institutional investigator claimed they were just doing their jobs. They said they should be considered immune from the lawsuit unless Ortiz could establish that their conduct violated her clearly established rights.
A trial judge, however, refused to grant their motion for dismissal, or summary judgment, at that point, and the case went to trial. Ortiz won.
That's when the two state employees, Paula Jordan and Rebecca Bright, filed an appeal. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 vote that the pre-trial motion for dismissal should have been granted.
Ortiz appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Mills argued on her behalf that if the two employees were intent on claiming immunity, they should have kept on arguing it after their motion for summary judgment was dismissed, using procedures available during the trial and immediately after the verdict was read.
The Supreme Court agreed.
In a concurring opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but they would have sent the case back to that court to consider other issues.
Since the attacks, "Ohio has instituted significant reforms to prevent this type of activity" and, if it occurs, to address it quickly, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Before Monday's ruling, various federal and state courts disagreed on the rules for challenging government-employee immunity if it is rejected before trial. The ruling will send a clear signal about how to proceed, said Alan Chen, director of the constitutional rights and remedies program at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.
Michelle Ortiz considers this a moral victory, not only for herself but for all women who have been assaulted or punished by the people paid by the public to protect them. Ortiz was sexually assaulted in prison while serving a 12-month sentence in a domestic violence case in which she fought off her physically abusive husband with a knife.
"If this helps one woman that this has ever happened to or that it could ever happen to, then I am just so happy," she said. "Not for the money, but for the verdict."
The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, that would have denied Ortiz her verdict and a $625,000 judgment. The high court decision was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has implications for how government attorneys handle lawsuits filed against public employees.
But the case has only narrow ramifications for the general public, despite the compelling story behind it, according to attorneys for the state of Ohio as well as outside legal experts.
"The Supreme Court case was solely about a procedural issue; it involved which procedures to use to challenge certain categories of legal rulings," Lisa Peterson Hackley, spokeswoman for the Ohio attorney general's office, said in an e-mail statement. "While we're disappointed in the outcome, it's always good when courts clear up unclear rules."
Andrew Pollis, a visiting assistant law professor at Case Western Reserve University who assisted Ortiz's lead attorney, David Mills, in the case, agreed that the case could be interpreted to have a limited impact.
"To be honest, this is a narrow procedural issue, so it isn't some new ruling about the way prison officials must treat inmates, although you could tell from the way Justice Ginsburg wrote the ruling that she was displeased with the way prison officials treated Michelle Ortiz," Pollis said.
Ortiz was in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in November 2002 when she reported that a male guard fondled her breasts and warned, "I'll get you tomorrow, watch." He did, returning when Ortiz was asleep to molest her again.
When Ortiz told other inmates about the attack, she was shackled and sent to solitary confinement. The state said this was for her own protection, as well as for the sake of preserving the integrity of their investigation while they looked into Ortiz's claims.
Ortiz sued, and the prison's case manager and an institutional investigator claimed they were just doing their jobs. They said they should be considered immune from the lawsuit unless Ortiz could establish that their conduct violated her clearly established rights.
A trial judge, however, refused to grant their motion for dismissal, or summary judgment, at that point, and the case went to trial. Ortiz won.
That's when the two state employees, Paula Jordan and Rebecca Bright, filed an appeal. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 vote that the pre-trial motion for dismissal should have been granted.
Ortiz appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Mills argued on her behalf that if the two employees were intent on claiming immunity, they should have kept on arguing it after their motion for summary judgment was dismissed, using procedures available during the trial and immediately after the verdict was read.
The Supreme Court agreed.
In a concurring opinion, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but they would have sent the case back to that court to consider other issues.
Since the attacks, "Ohio has instituted significant reforms to prevent this type of activity" and, if it occurs, to address it quickly, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Before Monday's ruling, various federal and state courts disagreed on the rules for challenging government-employee immunity if it is rejected before trial. The ruling will send a clear signal about how to proceed, said Alan Chen, director of the constitutional rights and remedies program at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Chicago artist's protest backfires as he faces 15 years in jail... because he recorded his own arrest on video
By Daily Mail Reporter
An artist who used a video camera to record being arrested by police is facing up to 15 years in prison.
Chris Drew has been charged with Class 1 felony under the Eavesdropping Act in Chicago, Illinois.
The bemused activist said he did not know anything about the law when he was protesting about restrictions on where artists can sell their work.
He has resorted to civil disobedience in his fight against rules he regards as draconian – and got a friend to record his arrest on an Olympus camera.
Mr Drew expected police to take him into custody before releasing him over the misdemeanour – but now he’s facing up to 15 years in jail.
He will go on trial on April 4 charged with using a digital recorder to capture his arrest on December 2, 2009.
He was selling silk-screened patches for $1 when he was stopped by police.
Footage of the incident has been posted on YouTube.
Three officers surround him in the tape before he is led away across the road and put into a vehicle.
The suspect told the Chicago News Cooperative: ‘I expected to be charged with a misdemeanour.
‘I didn’t know about the eavesdropping law. But when you fight for your rights, you have to expect anything. I have a ’60s bent to me. I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated.
‘From the moment I comprehended these charges, I knew we had to change this law.’
Mr Drew, the founder of the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, had set out to get himself arrested for selling items in the street three times before he was finally stopped by police.
Under the Eavesdropping Act, which applies in 12 states, all parties must consent to a recording being made.
Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states where it is illegal to record conversations with the police.
In Illinois police are currently prosecuting nine people for alleged breaches of the law.
The maximum penalty is only three years behind bars for the first time the law is broken and five years if it is done again,
But anyone recording a judge, attorney general, state attorney or police officer can be sent to jail for up to 15 years.
An artist who used a video camera to record being arrested by police is facing up to 15 years in prison.
Chris Drew has been charged with Class 1 felony under the Eavesdropping Act in Chicago, Illinois.
The bemused activist said he did not know anything about the law when he was protesting about restrictions on where artists can sell their work.
He has resorted to civil disobedience in his fight against rules he regards as draconian – and got a friend to record his arrest on an Olympus camera.
Mr Drew expected police to take him into custody before releasing him over the misdemeanour – but now he’s facing up to 15 years in jail.
He will go on trial on April 4 charged with using a digital recorder to capture his arrest on December 2, 2009.
He was selling silk-screened patches for $1 when he was stopped by police.
Footage of the incident has been posted on YouTube.
Three officers surround him in the tape before he is led away across the road and put into a vehicle.
The suspect told the Chicago News Cooperative: ‘I expected to be charged with a misdemeanour.
‘I didn’t know about the eavesdropping law. But when you fight for your rights, you have to expect anything. I have a ’60s bent to me. I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated.
‘From the moment I comprehended these charges, I knew we had to change this law.’
Mr Drew, the founder of the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, had set out to get himself arrested for selling items in the street three times before he was finally stopped by police.
Under the Eavesdropping Act, which applies in 12 states, all parties must consent to a recording being made.
Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states where it is illegal to record conversations with the police.
In Illinois police are currently prosecuting nine people for alleged breaches of the law.
The maximum penalty is only three years behind bars for the first time the law is broken and five years if it is done again,
But anyone recording a judge, attorney general, state attorney or police officer can be sent to jail for up to 15 years.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Burge sentence – justice still delayed and denied
by Ted Pearson
So Jon Burge has been sentenced to 54 months in prison by U. S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow. That’s four and a half years. That’s twice the sentence suggested in the federal guidelines for perjury. In sentencing Burge Judge Lefkow noted the total lack of remorse by Burge for his crimes and his continued denial that he did anything wrong. She expressed shock that Burge’s attorneys justified what Burge did because the people he tortured were members of gangs and had been convicted of crimes, even though many were wrongfully convicted. She excoriated the City of Chicago and Cook County for what she called a failure of leadership, observing that had Burge’s supervisors and the Cook County State’s Attorney taken steps to stop Burge early in the saga of his crimes, “we would not have come to this point.” The State’s Attorney at the time was Chicago’s outgoing Mayor of 22 years, Richard M. Daley. Lefkow’s statement in issuing the sentence against Burge was an indictment of the city’s leadership.
But let’s keep some perspective on this. Burge’s 54 month sentence equates to 1643 days in prison. That’s 15 days for each man Burge and his detectives tortured.
Twenty four of these men are still in prison. The average prison sentence meted out to his victims is difficult to calculate, since 12 were sentenced to death (saved only by former Gov. George Ryan), or to life in prison without parole. Sixteen of his victims have been exonerated. The average, to date, of the number of years spent behind bars by his victims, is on the order of 25. Burge’s sentence is about fourteen hours for each year his victims have spent so far in prison. One year in prison for a Black or Latino man equals fourteen hours in prison for the white detective, Jon Burge. Such is the nature of our criminal justice system.
Not included, however, are the hundreds of men, all Black or Latino, who were tortured by Burge’s detectives AFTER he was removed from his position in 1991. These men have said at their trials that they falsely confessed and were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Many others make credible claims that they were framed by corrupt police simply to “clear their books,” to settle old scores, or in plea bargains with other criminals. The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has received scores of letters from such men.
There will be much discussion about the degree to which Burge’s sentence and Judge Lefkow’s statement were victories over police torture. Victims of his tortures who have been exonerated or released, and who were present in the courtroom when the sentence was delivered, were near unanimous in voicing their anger that he received such a light sentence, when so many of them have suffered decades of false imprisonment. U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that “the investigation continues” into police torture in Chicago, but he did not say whether indictments against any of Burge’s partners in crime would be sought. Fitzgerald did not even hint that the U. S. Justice Department would take any steps to intervene on behalf of Burge’s victims who remain incarcerated. He did not suggest any effort to seek compensation for the victims of Burge’s crew, some of who are now homeless and living on the streets.
But lest it be lost in the discussion let’s remember this one simple fact: dozens of Black and Latino men who have alleged from the beginning that they gave false confessions under physical duress at the hands of police remain in prison, or face continued unemployment and ostracism because of false felony records. No matter how many years Jon Burge is in prison, his imprisonment will not free a single person. No matter how many of the police torturers may ultimately be brought before the bar of justice, it will not compensate a single torture victim for the loss of their freedom, the disruption and stress on their families, the psychological torment, or the physical damage to their persons.
Each of these torture survivors has lost part of their human potential, their ability to support their families. This, along with other everyday acts of racism and injustice, serves to as a constant reminder that the lives, hopes and dreams of people who are neither white nor rich, are expendable. Yet, the torture survivors have not lost their dignity due to this racist, inhumane treatment. They bravely share their stories, courageously testify, march, protest and keep fighting for justice. They inspire all who care about humanity, especially their attorneys, to step up and do the same, if not more to eliminate structural inequality, especially in the criminal justice system.
These men are imprisoned, or carry serious felony records, as a result of police crimes. They are crime victims in every sense of the word, and victims of crimes committed under color of law. Chicagoans who believe that all men and women are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not rest until these men are all free and have been compensated for the suffering they and their families have endured. The jailing of Jon Burge and the prosecution of his gang of torturers will not satisfy this demand. Only the restoration of these men to freedom and full citizenship can accomplish that.
In post-apartheid South Africa the Rev. Desmond Tutu led a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, at which the torturers of Black African freedom fighters faced their victims and accepted responsibility for their crimes. In Illinois there needs to be such a process. There is no legal precedent for it in the U. S. that I know of, but a first step would be for U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to immediately create special units to investigate these claims of wrongful conviction and torture, and take steps to have the victims set free and compensated when the evidence supports their claims. Dallas County Texas District Attorney Craig Watkins has taken such an initiative utilizing DNA evidence, and 25 men in Dallas County have been freed in four years. We in Cook County can do no less.
#
Ted Pearson is Co-Chairperson of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, with offices at 1325 S. Wabash Av. Suite 105, Chicago IL 60605, 312-939-2750, http://www.naarpr.org.
So Jon Burge has been sentenced to 54 months in prison by U. S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow. That’s four and a half years. That’s twice the sentence suggested in the federal guidelines for perjury. In sentencing Burge Judge Lefkow noted the total lack of remorse by Burge for his crimes and his continued denial that he did anything wrong. She expressed shock that Burge’s attorneys justified what Burge did because the people he tortured were members of gangs and had been convicted of crimes, even though many were wrongfully convicted. She excoriated the City of Chicago and Cook County for what she called a failure of leadership, observing that had Burge’s supervisors and the Cook County State’s Attorney taken steps to stop Burge early in the saga of his crimes, “we would not have come to this point.” The State’s Attorney at the time was Chicago’s outgoing Mayor of 22 years, Richard M. Daley. Lefkow’s statement in issuing the sentence against Burge was an indictment of the city’s leadership.
But let’s keep some perspective on this. Burge’s 54 month sentence equates to 1643 days in prison. That’s 15 days for each man Burge and his detectives tortured.
Twenty four of these men are still in prison. The average prison sentence meted out to his victims is difficult to calculate, since 12 were sentenced to death (saved only by former Gov. George Ryan), or to life in prison without parole. Sixteen of his victims have been exonerated. The average, to date, of the number of years spent behind bars by his victims, is on the order of 25. Burge’s sentence is about fourteen hours for each year his victims have spent so far in prison. One year in prison for a Black or Latino man equals fourteen hours in prison for the white detective, Jon Burge. Such is the nature of our criminal justice system.
Not included, however, are the hundreds of men, all Black or Latino, who were tortured by Burge’s detectives AFTER he was removed from his position in 1991. These men have said at their trials that they falsely confessed and were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Many others make credible claims that they were framed by corrupt police simply to “clear their books,” to settle old scores, or in plea bargains with other criminals. The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has received scores of letters from such men.
There will be much discussion about the degree to which Burge’s sentence and Judge Lefkow’s statement were victories over police torture. Victims of his tortures who have been exonerated or released, and who were present in the courtroom when the sentence was delivered, were near unanimous in voicing their anger that he received such a light sentence, when so many of them have suffered decades of false imprisonment. U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that “the investigation continues” into police torture in Chicago, but he did not say whether indictments against any of Burge’s partners in crime would be sought. Fitzgerald did not even hint that the U. S. Justice Department would take any steps to intervene on behalf of Burge’s victims who remain incarcerated. He did not suggest any effort to seek compensation for the victims of Burge’s crew, some of who are now homeless and living on the streets.
But lest it be lost in the discussion let’s remember this one simple fact: dozens of Black and Latino men who have alleged from the beginning that they gave false confessions under physical duress at the hands of police remain in prison, or face continued unemployment and ostracism because of false felony records. No matter how many years Jon Burge is in prison, his imprisonment will not free a single person. No matter how many of the police torturers may ultimately be brought before the bar of justice, it will not compensate a single torture victim for the loss of their freedom, the disruption and stress on their families, the psychological torment, or the physical damage to their persons.
Each of these torture survivors has lost part of their human potential, their ability to support their families. This, along with other everyday acts of racism and injustice, serves to as a constant reminder that the lives, hopes and dreams of people who are neither white nor rich, are expendable. Yet, the torture survivors have not lost their dignity due to this racist, inhumane treatment. They bravely share their stories, courageously testify, march, protest and keep fighting for justice. They inspire all who care about humanity, especially their attorneys, to step up and do the same, if not more to eliminate structural inequality, especially in the criminal justice system.
These men are imprisoned, or carry serious felony records, as a result of police crimes. They are crime victims in every sense of the word, and victims of crimes committed under color of law. Chicagoans who believe that all men and women are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can not rest until these men are all free and have been compensated for the suffering they and their families have endured. The jailing of Jon Burge and the prosecution of his gang of torturers will not satisfy this demand. Only the restoration of these men to freedom and full citizenship can accomplish that.
In post-apartheid South Africa the Rev. Desmond Tutu led a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, at which the torturers of Black African freedom fighters faced their victims and accepted responsibility for their crimes. In Illinois there needs to be such a process. There is no legal precedent for it in the U. S. that I know of, but a first step would be for U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to immediately create special units to investigate these claims of wrongful conviction and torture, and take steps to have the victims set free and compensated when the evidence supports their claims. Dallas County Texas District Attorney Craig Watkins has taken such an initiative utilizing DNA evidence, and 25 men in Dallas County have been freed in four years. We in Cook County can do no less.
#
Ted Pearson is Co-Chairperson of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, with offices at 1325 S. Wabash Av. Suite 105, Chicago IL 60605, 312-939-2750, http://www.naarpr.org.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Burge witness: Torture charges 'unprecedented'
By Annie Sweeney
The sentencing hearing for former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge recessed for the day after a University of Chicago professor testified that torture allegations against Burge are unlike any other police misconduct in the city's history.
“This is an unprecedented instance,’’ said Adam Green, who specializes in African-American history. “What happened at Area 2 is really a singular chapter.’’
Green said abuse by police strikes at entire communities, but a sense of worth and respect can be restored if the misconduct is addressed.
Earlier today, one of Burge's alleged victims took the stand and asked Burge, “Why would you do this? … You were supposed to be the law.”
Before a packed courtroom, Anthony Holmes told how he still dreams he is inside the now infamous room at the Area 2 station on the South Side where Burge allegedly used electric shock and suffocation to coerce confessions from suspects.
Holmes, saying it was difficult for him to testify about the abuse, took a deep breath before he started. He said his wrongful imprisonment shattered family relationships and caused constant fear of police and re-arrest.
Reading prepared remarks in a low voice, Holmes recounted what Burge allegedly did to him.
“Jon Burge shocked me and he suffocated me and forced me to confess,’’ he said. “ … He tried to kill me and it leaves a growing, hurting feeling.’’
A community activist and a former detective who worked in the same detective division where Burge is alleged to have abused and tortured suspects also testified.
Burge, wearing a dark blue suit, was slightly animated during testimony from Sammy Lacey, the former detective.
Lacey, who is African-American, talked of being passed over for homicide assignments and said he had heard “scuttlebutt’’ about the tactics Burge and others on a midnight shift used against suspects.
Lacey said they were referred to as the “A team.’’ When asked why, he replied, “They were the a-kicking team.’’
Burge’s sentencing hearing began at 10 a.m. with some 80 people lined up outside in the hallway hoping to get for a seat in U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow’s courtroom. An overflow room was set up to accommodate the crowd.
On Friday, Burge’s attorneys are expected to present testimony on his behalf and U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow could impose sentence after that.
The sentencing hearing for former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge recessed for the day after a University of Chicago professor testified that torture allegations against Burge are unlike any other police misconduct in the city's history.
“This is an unprecedented instance,’’ said Adam Green, who specializes in African-American history. “What happened at Area 2 is really a singular chapter.’’
Green said abuse by police strikes at entire communities, but a sense of worth and respect can be restored if the misconduct is addressed.
Earlier today, one of Burge's alleged victims took the stand and asked Burge, “Why would you do this? … You were supposed to be the law.”
Before a packed courtroom, Anthony Holmes told how he still dreams he is inside the now infamous room at the Area 2 station on the South Side where Burge allegedly used electric shock and suffocation to coerce confessions from suspects.
Holmes, saying it was difficult for him to testify about the abuse, took a deep breath before he started. He said his wrongful imprisonment shattered family relationships and caused constant fear of police and re-arrest.
Reading prepared remarks in a low voice, Holmes recounted what Burge allegedly did to him.
“Jon Burge shocked me and he suffocated me and forced me to confess,’’ he said. “ … He tried to kill me and it leaves a growing, hurting feeling.’’
A community activist and a former detective who worked in the same detective division where Burge is alleged to have abused and tortured suspects also testified.
Burge, wearing a dark blue suit, was slightly animated during testimony from Sammy Lacey, the former detective.
Lacey, who is African-American, talked of being passed over for homicide assignments and said he had heard “scuttlebutt’’ about the tactics Burge and others on a midnight shift used against suspects.
Lacey said they were referred to as the “A team.’’ When asked why, he replied, “They were the a-kicking team.’’
Burge’s sentencing hearing began at 10 a.m. with some 80 people lined up outside in the hallway hoping to get for a seat in U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow’s courtroom. An overflow room was set up to accommodate the crowd.
On Friday, Burge’s attorneys are expected to present testimony on his behalf and U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow could impose sentence after that.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Family to get $1.8 million in dad's jailing, teen's false sex-assault interrogation
By JOHN WISELY and L.L. BRASIER
Free Press Staff Writers
A West Bloomfield Township family will get $1.8 million to settle a lawsuit against the police department, after the father was prosecuted and jailed after being accused of sexually assaulting his severely autistic daughter — a prosecution that eventually imploded..
The charges against Julian Wendrow were dropped for lack of evidence in March 2008, after he had spent 80 days in the Oakland County jail. His wife, Thal Wendrow, was also jailed, and the girl, 14, and her brother, 13, were placed in foster care for months.
The settlement was made public in district court filings today.
The Oakland County prosecutor’s case was based almost solely on statements the daughter reportedly made using facilitated communication, a widely discredited method in which the child typed on a keyboard with the assistance of a school aid. The girl, who does not speak and functions on the level of a two-year-old, reportedly typed that her father had been raping her since age seven. Prosecutors pursued the case, even though a physical exam showed no sign of assault.
The family sued in federal court in 2008, alleging 38 counts of false imprisonment, wrongful prosecution and other misdeeds.
The Wendrows named the police department as a defendant in part because of a two-hour interrogation a detective conducted with the 13-year-old boy, shortly after his parents arrests, wrongly telling him they had videotapes of both the boy and his father sexually assaulting the girl. The boy had no adult representative present for the interview.
Joseph Brusseau, the detective who remains on the police force, later admitted in depositions that was untrue. The boy, who suffers from Asperger's, a milder form of autism, can be seen in a video rocking and crying during the interview and insisting that neither he or his father had assaulted anyone.
The Free Press obtained a copy of the video of the interview and the parents said they had no objections to putting it on Freep.com.
“They pushed this thing in spite of literally having no evidence of any kind of abuse, other than this Faciliated Communication nonsense, which is in effect a Ouija board,” said Bloomfield Hills attorney Deborah Gordon, who represents the Wendrows. “What the police department did was unbelievably horrific.”
William Hampton, the attorney representing the police department, said the settlement was “nothing more than a business decision by the insurance company, with no admission of wrongdoing or of any liability.”
And he said the department would investigate the case the same way again, including the interrogation of the boy and the jailing of the father.
“We’ll assess everything, but really, right off hand, I can’t think of anything they would do differently because we really don’t think they did anything wrong.”
Facilitated communication has been widely dismissed by experts worldwide because studies show it is the aide who is actually doing the typing. Nevertheless, the Wendrows had pushed the school district to use it, hoping their daughter might be able to succeed in school work.
Oakland County prosecutors, who are also named in the suit, admit in depositions that they did not investigate the method prior to charging the Wendrows, and could not find anyone to support the method as reliable, despite calls nationwide after their arrests. They pursued the prosecution nevertheless. The charges were dropped in March when the girl was unable to type a single answer to questions posed to her in district court.
The Wendrows will be in federal court Thursday, where the prosecutors, and two other defendants, Walled Lake Consolidated School District and the Michigan Department of Human Services will argue to have the case dismissed because of governmental immunity.
Free Press Staff Writers
A West Bloomfield Township family will get $1.8 million to settle a lawsuit against the police department, after the father was prosecuted and jailed after being accused of sexually assaulting his severely autistic daughter — a prosecution that eventually imploded..
The charges against Julian Wendrow were dropped for lack of evidence in March 2008, after he had spent 80 days in the Oakland County jail. His wife, Thal Wendrow, was also jailed, and the girl, 14, and her brother, 13, were placed in foster care for months.
The settlement was made public in district court filings today.
The Oakland County prosecutor’s case was based almost solely on statements the daughter reportedly made using facilitated communication, a widely discredited method in which the child typed on a keyboard with the assistance of a school aid. The girl, who does not speak and functions on the level of a two-year-old, reportedly typed that her father had been raping her since age seven. Prosecutors pursued the case, even though a physical exam showed no sign of assault.
The family sued in federal court in 2008, alleging 38 counts of false imprisonment, wrongful prosecution and other misdeeds.
The Wendrows named the police department as a defendant in part because of a two-hour interrogation a detective conducted with the 13-year-old boy, shortly after his parents arrests, wrongly telling him they had videotapes of both the boy and his father sexually assaulting the girl. The boy had no adult representative present for the interview.
Joseph Brusseau, the detective who remains on the police force, later admitted in depositions that was untrue. The boy, who suffers from Asperger's, a milder form of autism, can be seen in a video rocking and crying during the interview and insisting that neither he or his father had assaulted anyone.
The Free Press obtained a copy of the video of the interview and the parents said they had no objections to putting it on Freep.com.
“They pushed this thing in spite of literally having no evidence of any kind of abuse, other than this Faciliated Communication nonsense, which is in effect a Ouija board,” said Bloomfield Hills attorney Deborah Gordon, who represents the Wendrows. “What the police department did was unbelievably horrific.”
William Hampton, the attorney representing the police department, said the settlement was “nothing more than a business decision by the insurance company, with no admission of wrongdoing or of any liability.”
And he said the department would investigate the case the same way again, including the interrogation of the boy and the jailing of the father.
“We’ll assess everything, but really, right off hand, I can’t think of anything they would do differently because we really don’t think they did anything wrong.”
Facilitated communication has been widely dismissed by experts worldwide because studies show it is the aide who is actually doing the typing. Nevertheless, the Wendrows had pushed the school district to use it, hoping their daughter might be able to succeed in school work.
Oakland County prosecutors, who are also named in the suit, admit in depositions that they did not investigate the method prior to charging the Wendrows, and could not find anyone to support the method as reliable, despite calls nationwide after their arrests. They pursued the prosecution nevertheless. The charges were dropped in March when the girl was unable to type a single answer to questions posed to her in district court.
The Wendrows will be in federal court Thursday, where the prosecutors, and two other defendants, Walled Lake Consolidated School District and the Michigan Department of Human Services will argue to have the case dismissed because of governmental immunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
