Plain Clothes Officer Pulls Gun on Man for Speeding; Police Threaten to Jail Him for Recording the Incident



Whatever you do, don’t speed to work in Maryland. Apparently, the cops in that state believe the appropriate way to handle speeding is to use an unmarked car with no lights or sirens to cut off the speeder, forcing them to stop, then jump out the car with no uniform or badge and fail to identify them self while he pulls out his gun and orders you off your vehicle. That’s what happened to Anthony Graber, who admitted to speeding. He was cited for doing 80 MPH on the highway. Fortunately for us, the story gets more interesting.

Anthony was riding with a video camera attached to his helmet to record his venture. It was still recording when it caught the cop acting like a thug.

The full video...



The incident itself raises some interesting questions. First of all, the officer here comes off as an impulsive thug, not the image we should expect of our law enforcement officers. Second, as a concealed pistol license holder, I would probably interpret this officers actions as those of a car jacker or road raging murderer. If this happened to me or someone else who was carrying, it might have resulted in the officer and/or the motorist being shot. Not wise, officer.

But it gets worse…

A month after this incident cops found the video Anthony posted on youtube. Apparently furious that their behavior was exposed, they showed up to his home with a warrant for his arrest for felony recording without consent from the other party. Maryland is a two-party consent state for audio recording, but that is usually never upheld when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy – such as on the side of a busy road during a traffic stop. They also confiscated his cameras and computers. Anthony now faces five years in prison, but it seems likely the case will simply be thrown out. We’ll see. I think Anthony might be looking at a fat paycheck at the end of this.

After spending 26 hours in the Baltimore County Jail, Anthony Graber still doesn’t understand what he did wrong.

Sure, the 24-year-old man admits to speeding on his motorcycle, but does that merit having a plainclothes cop pull a gun on him?

Does that merit six state troopers raiding his parents’ home and seizing four computers at the crack of dawn?

Does that merit getting charged with a felony and threatened with five years in prison?

Of course it doesn’t

This is nothing but an obscene case of police intimidation. A Constitutional violation against a man who has served six years in the Air National Guard and who has never been arrested before.

A knee-jerk reaction from the Maryland State Police after Graber posted the video of the cop pulling a gun on him on Youtube (video is below).

That cop’s name is Joseph David Uhler, in case you were wondering. He has no business wearing a badge.

So how come he’s not being punished?

Well, we already know that answer. He’s above the law. They are above the law. The Maryland State Police Department, that is.

Why else would a judge sign a search warrant, allowing them to raid Graber’s parents home at 6:45 a.m. on a weekday, detaining his entire family for 90 minutes, forbidding his mother from going to work and younger sister from going to school while they rummaged through the family’s personal belongings?

And that judge’s name?

That’s a secret.

“There is no signature from the judge on the paperwork,” Graber said in an exclusive Photography is Not a Crime interview Thursday night, just hours after he was released from jail.

“They told me they don’t want you to know who the judge is because of privacy.

Is this America? Where cops are allowed to violate your Fourth Amendment rights – not to mention your First Amendment right to film them – on the approval of some secretive judge?

Well maybe not all judges agree.

“The judge who released me looked at the paperwork and said she didn’t see where I violated the wiretapping law.”

Ah yes, the wiretapping charge. That old standby that cops use when you happen to videotape them in public while they are on duty when they have absolutely no expectation of privacy.

Sure, the First Amendment supposedly allows us to photograph police in public. Numerous court rulings have determined that.

But now cops have turned to irrelevant wire-tapping charges to crack down against those who video them in public.

Those laws are designed to protect people whose voices are recorded in telephone calls. You know, when you actually have an expectation of privacy.

Fortunately, most judges end up throwing these charges out of court when the cops don’t have an expectation of privacy.

The case against Graber began on March 5 when he was speeding on his 2008 Honda CBR 1000RR motorcycle on Interstate 95. He had a video camera strapped to his helmet and was filming the ride.

He sped past Uhler’s unmarked car, who claimed he was popping a wheelie while traveling 100 mph.

And Uhler was only “visually estimating” his speed. He did not have a radar gun, which usually means it wouldn’t stand up in court.

Graber also admits to speeding past a marked car. However, he never heard any sirens behind him and even at one point in the video where Graber looks back, the only car behind him is Uhler’s unmarked car with no lights.

That was when Graber was already exiting the interstate. When he came to a complete stop behind the other cars at the exit, Uhler cut him off and hopped out of his car with a gun drawn, never flashing a badge and not identifying himself as an officer until several seconds later.

Uhler never mentioned that he pulled out his gun in his report.

But he did mention that he spotted “a strange looking object on the operator’s helmet that was later realized to be a video camera.”

And he did mention that he cited Graber a single citation for traveling 80 mph in a 65 mph zone.

So what’s the problem?

Well, Graber decided to post the video on Youtube, which made Uhler look like a thug.

In fact, if you look at the video, you’ll notice Uhler glance at the marked unit behind Graber and moved his gun behind him, as if trying to hide it from the other officer, before tucking it back into his pocket.

After all, an officer is only supposed to pull out his gun if he believes his life is in danger. Surely, that doesn’t happen with every traffic stop. Does it?

Ten days later, Uhler discovered that Graber posted the video online. Two videos. A longer one without audio and a shorter one with audio.

That prompted Uhler to issue an arrest warrant against Graber, citing that “Graber did not inform Tfc. Uhler that he was recording him by video or audio, thus violating criminal law 10-402(b).”

He also tacked on the charges of “reckless driving” and “negligent driving” to the arrest warrant.

And then six cops raided his parent’s home where Graber is living early one morning.

“They spent 90 minutes there,” he said.

“My mom had to go to work and they wouldn’t let her. My sister had to go to school and they wouldn’t let her.

“I just had gall bladder surgery and had bandages on my stomach.”

In fact, after a phone call to the commissioner, that was the only reason they didn’t arrest him on the spot. They told him he had to turn himself in when he got better, which he did.

“I just wanted to do the right thing,” he said.

When he showed up to the jail, they set his bond at $15,000, which is a little extravagant considering there is a maximum $10,000 fine for a wiretapping conviction.

He spent 26 hours in jail before he was released upon his own recognizance. The judge who released him took one look at the report and said that it didn’t appear he violated the wiretapping law.

“She said, ‘I have no idea why you’re charged with this’,” he said.

In fact, Maryland requires there to be an expectation of privacy in order to make that charge valid, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

State courts interpreted laws to protect communications only when parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy

The incident has left Graber with a serious distrust of police.

“I’m now afraid of the police. Afraid of what they can do to me. I’ve never been arrested in my life before this,” he said.

He is now making arrangements to sell his motorcycle because he doesn’t feel comfortable riding it anymore.

And he is waiting for his preliminary trial to see if prosecutors will decide to pursue this case.

And as for Uhler, well he’s still roaming free to terrorize the citizens. Just as he did in Graber’s video.

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Speeding Ticket By Visual Guess

In a 5-1 decision yesterday, Ohio's Supreme Court upheld a speeding ticket based solely on how fast a driver appeared to be moving. The court considered the case of motorist Mark Jenney who drove through a State Route 21 radar speed trap operated by Copley police officer Christopher R Santimarino on July 3, 2008. Santimarino guessed based on the appearance of Jenney's black SUV that it was traveling at 79 MPH in a 60 zone.
Santimarino claimed that his thirteen years as a traffic cop and his certification in speed estimation by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy qualified him to make expert visual determinations of how fast vehicles are moving within 4 MPH. In court, Santimarino testified that his radar showed Jenney was traveling at 82 MPH on direct examination and 83 MPH on cross-examination.
Based on this, a district court convicted Jenney. On appeal, Jenney succeeded in having the radar evidence thrown out because the officer failed to produce the required certification documents at trial. The appeals court then ruled that the visual guess as to Jenney's speed was sufficient evidence for a conviction. Jenney appealed to the supreme court, which agreed with the lower court rulings that an officer's educated guess is sufficient to overcome that state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"A majority of the appellate districts that have considered the issue have held that an officer's testimony that in his opinion, a defendant was traveling in excess of the speed limit is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding," Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the majority. "Given Santimarino's training, OPOTA certification, and experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, his estimation that Jenney was traveling 70 miles per hour was sufficient to support Jenney's conviction... We hold that a police officer's unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle's speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed."
Justice Terrence O'Donnell filed a dissent that argued the majority essentially created a standard that the police officer is always right.
"Like any other witness, a police officer's credibility is to be determined by the jury or other fact-finder," O'Donnell wrote. "In fact, jury instructions given regularly by trial judges advise that a jury is privileged to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer's estimate of speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not to be credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction."

Source

So, now a legal precedent's been set...all a cop has to do is say you were speeding, and it sticks. What happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Around 2.30PM on Saturday, December 19, during a historic snowstorm, residents at the intersection of 14th and U Streets NW started throwing snowballs at passing Hummers.

One of the cars pelted was driven by a plainclothes police officer identified only as Det. Baylor. Baylor got out of his car and brandished his gun at the crowd.

Reason.tv's Dan Hayes was on the scene, capturing the tense confrontation between police and citizens who chanted "Don't bring a gun to a snowball fight!"

Approximately 5 minutes; harsh language throughout.

The Largest Street Gang in America - A Compilation About Police Brutality in America

Comments from the Author:

"This is the longest video I’ve ever uploaded; hopefully it will be the largest for a while. The content necessitated a slightly longer presentation than normal, since one of my reasons for making it was to see just how much a person could watch before the light comes on and they realize there is a serious problem.

In the end, no one is evil simply by wearing a badge just as no one is honorable for doing the same. The truth is that every individual is responsible for their own actions. And those actions (not an outfit or career) can make men heroes or beasts.

If you want respect; earn it.

As for my fellow citizens that didn't get a job on the Force, you need to take immediate action to turn the tide. If you don't, it will be your children that suffer under an even more oppressive and untouchable force. Soon we may find ourselves in a position where turning the tide is no longer a possibility. What then will you tell your children, when they ask you what you did with your remaining freedoms before turning them over to the whims of the Police State?

Oklahoma trooper suspended earlier for fight with paramedic again accused of excessive force

HOLDENVILLE, Okla. — An Oklahoma trooper previously suspended for fighting with an ambulance driver is on paid administrative leave after being accused of using excessive force.

Trooper Daniel Martin is accused of beating Khristopher Douglas of Holdenville. Douglas says he was at a friend’s home helping with renovations Saturday when troopers pulled up to handle an apparent traffic stop.

Douglas says he was going inside when Martin demanded he come toward the street. Douglas says Martin grabbed his arm and began beating him when he questioned the order.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol Capt. Chris West says Martin and another trooper are on paid leave during the investigation.

Martin served a five-day suspension for the May incident in which he grabbed a paramedic in a choke hold around the neck.

Source

Five days for this....

Oklahoma Highway Patrol fight with EMT

Still on the force, still being an idiot. Nice. Wonder why cops are losing more and more respect.

Police: Officer Pretended To Be Twin For Sex
Victim Says She Was Held Down After Realization

MILFORD, Conn. -- An Orange police officer is accused of pretending to be his twin brother in order to engage in a sexual encounter with a woman.

Officer Jared Rohrig, of Milford, was arrested Friday in connection with the sexual assault.

Police said a woman told police that she went to meet Rohrig's twin brother, Joe, whom she was in a relationship with. The woman got into a hot tub with Jared Rohrig, thinking it was his brother, police said.

Police said the hot tub activity moved into one of the home's bedrooms, where the two began having sex.

"During the sexual intercourse, she realized the male she was with did not have a tattoo on his left buttocks. The female victim said she immediately began to cry and asked where his tattoo went," according to the arrest affidavit.

The woman said Joe, whom she had been having a sexual relationship with since March 2009, has a tattoo of a cowboy, according to the affidavit.

Police said when the woman tried to leave after realizing Jared Rohrig was not Joe, Jared Rohrig pushed her down onto the bed, covered her face with a pillow and continued having sex.

Rohrig was charged with sexual assault in the first degree and criminal impersonation. His bond was set at $50,000 and he is scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 8.

He was put on paid leave from the Orange Police Department.

Source

Police reject candidate for being too intelligent

A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: "This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Source

Australia: Car Seizure Law Used to Take Bike from Little Girl
Little girl in Victoria, Australia has her mini motorbike seized by local police under anti-hoon laws.

Police in Frankston, Australia used automobile seizure laws this weekend to impound a toy motorcycle belonging to a little girl. While under her father's supervision, Laney Frankland, 5, had been riding in circles around a reserve near the end of a neighborhood cul-de-sac on a 49cc motorbike. Police arrived on the scene late in the afternoon to tell the little girl that she was not supposed to be riding in that location. The officers then summoned a tow truck to take away her bike. The girl ran to her mother.

"I thought she had hurt herself," Tracey Frankland explained in an interview with 3AW Radio. "She came back and she was hysterical. Her face was bright red and tears were pouring down her face. Now she thinks the police are bad."

Laney Frankland has been riding toy motorbikes since she was two years old. Her parents gave her the new 49cc model just six months ago. Tracey Frankland explained to 3AW that this seized bike was worth $400 but that police would only return it six months from now if an immediate payment of $550 was made.

Police in the state of Victoria have used so-called "hoon" laws to generate more than $3 million in revenue from such payments. These statutes give police the sole discretion to impound any vehicle an officer believes has been used in an anti-social manner. There is no appeal once the car is seized.

"The new legislation allows police to immediately take hoons off our roads, making them safer for everyone," Victoria Police Superintendent Peter Billing said in a statement after the anti-hoon law took effect in 2006.

Frankston has been at the forefront of seizures, going so far as to set up a toll-free hotline to allow anyone to call in and arrange for police to confiscate a vehicle. State law even allows seizures based on hearsay evidence. Tracey Frankland does not believe that her daughter was turned in by a neighbor as the bike did not cause any disturbance and she has never heard any complaints.

"It's not noisy at all," Tracey Frankland said. "People think it's gorgeous."

Store video catches cop bullying woman






WHEN AGNES LAWLESS and three friends were inside a Lukoil convenience store in the Northeast at 3 a.m. last August, they'd all but forgotten the fender-bender in which they'd been involved moments earlier.

There was little damage, and the other driver had left the scene, near Northeast Philadelphia Airport.

What they didn't know was that they'd been rear-ended by the son of a police officer who was on duty, and dad was about to get involved.

Lawless was standing at the counter of the store, at Comly Road and Roosevelt Boulevard, smiling and chatting with the clerk, when she was grabbed from behind and violently pushed back with a police officer's gun in her face.

"He hit me with his left hand, and he had his gun in his right hand," Lawless said. "He pushed his gun into the left side of my neck. It caused a scrape-type bruise on my neck."

After a chaotic struggle, Lawless was arrested and charged with assaulting the officer.

Lawless and her three friends, all in their early 20s, filed complaints with the Police Department's Internal Affairs Bureau. But in cases in which it's a defendant's word against a police officer's, the benefit of doubt often falls to the cop.

Except when there's video.

Once surveillance video from the store's four security cameras was released, the case against Lawless collapsed, and disciplinary action commenced against the officer, Alberto Lopez Sr. A lawsuit against the city is likely.

The incident provides a vivid example of how the countless video recordings generated today by security cameras and cell phones are affecting police work.

Drexel Law School professor Donald Tibbs said that video recordings are capturing more criminal activity and assisting prosecutions, but they're also monitoring police conduct.

"Police are now aware they're more accountable for their actions, because these tapes may be used against them in misconduct cases or civil-rights lawsuits," Tibbs said.

And Tibbs said that there are numerous cases of police seeking to confiscate and destroy tapes that may have captured a police action.


Internal Affairs probe



The clerk on duty the night that Lopez confronted Lawless told investigators that three times after the incident, police officers spoke with him about the security tape and that two asked if he would erase it.

An Internal Affairs investigation found no misconduct among officers who spoke with the clerk about the tape. But it concluded that Lopez had verbally abused Lawless, had jammed his gun into her face and had violated departmental procedures that night.

A hearing to determine what discipline, if any, will be imposed on Lopez is still pending.

Lopez's attorney, Gerald Stanshine, declined to comment and said that Lopez couldn't discuss the incident. Lopez's son, Alberto Lopez Jr., didn't respond to messages seeking comment.

Although some details of what happened are in dispute, it's clear that the Lukoil encounter occurred a few minutes after the blue Mazda in which Lawless was riding was rear-ended at Decatur and Comly roads by a Buick Century driven at slow speed by Lopez Jr.

Lopez Jr. left the scene and drove to the Eighth District police station, at Academy and Red Lion roads, to report the incident to his father. Officer Lopez and his son then left in his patrol car and soon saw the blue Mazda in the Lukoil parking lot.

Officer Lopez entered the store with his son and got into a physical confrontation with Lawless. Lawless ended up in cuffs, charged with assaulting Lopez.

At a preliminary hearing four days later, Officer Lopez testified that he'd come into the store and ordered Lawless and the three young men with her to the floor, and that "she freaked out, started punching, slapping and kicking me multiple times."

Based on the officer's testimony, Judge Robert Blasi ordered that the case proceed to trial.

But four days later, investigators from Internal Affairs got the store's surveillance video of the incident, and things changed quickly.

Lopez was assigned to desk duty and his weapon was removed. He failed to show up at three trial dates for Lawless' assault charges, which then were dropped. Images from four security cameras at the store reveal an encounter consistent with the accounts of Lawless, her three friends and Carlos "Tito" Ruiz, the clerk on duty at the time.

There is no audio, and the video is not continuous, capturing images at intervals ranging from three per second to one every few seconds.

The images show that when Officer Lopez entered the store, Lawless was at the counter, smiling and apparently unaware of his presence behind her.

Lopez grabbed Lawless' neck from behind with his left hand, with his gun in his right hand. Lawless broke free and faced him.

"I was really confused," Lawless said in an interview. "I didn't know if we were getting robbed. I remember seeing his uniform on his arm, he swung me around and hit me with his arm. He hit me first with an open hand, then he hit me with his gun in the face."

The video shows Lopez's left arm extending toward Lawless' face, and then his right arm driving forcefully toward her, jamming the gun in her neck or jaw.

Lawless broke free again, and for several seconds the video shows the three young men sitting on the floor, while arguing occurs among all four and Officer Lopez and his son.

"I had noticed his son as the guy who had hit us," Lawless said, "and [Officer Lopez] was screaming, 'You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?' "

The store clerk reported hearing similar comments from Officer Lopez.

Lawless said that she and her friends were yelling back that it was Lopez Jr. who had hit their car and left.


'I was really scared'



About a minute after the gun was in her neck, the video shows Officer Lopez on his cell phone, apparently calling for more police, when Lawless grabbed her bag and tried to walk out of the store.

"I remember stopping for a second, and thinking, like, 'This is out of control, I need to go get a real cop or something,' " Lawless said. "I was really scared."

Lopez Jr. intercepted Lawless and pushed her backward over the counter, with his right hand on her neck. Officer Lopez joined in and struggled with Lawless, who swung her arms at the two of them.

At that point, Lawless' friend Matthew Whatley came over and got between them, as did Ruiz, the store clerk. According to his statement to investigators, Ruiz managed to get Lawless and her friends to lie on the floor and wait for more police to arrive.

Then, according to the Internal Affairs report of Ruiz's statement, Officer Lopez told him to "do himself a favor and get rid of the camera tapes."

More officers soon arrived, and Lawless was cuffed and arrested. Her three friends were questioned and allowed to leave.

In his arrest report, Officer Lopez mentioned the auto accident that had initiated the events, but never mentioned that his son had been involved, referring to him in the report only as "the witness."

Ruiz told investigators that Lopez mentioned erasing the tape again after other officers arrived. He said that police visited him at the store twice the next day and asked him whether he would erase the tape. He also said that they had advised him to "help the cop out and testify for the cop."

Eventually, Lukoil turned the tapes over to Internal Affairs and to Whatley's family.

Although Officer Lopez and his son declined to discuss the incident with the Daily News, transcripts of their interviews with an Internal Affairs investigator provide their account of the events that night.

Lopez Jr. said that after the accident, the occupants of the blue Mazda got out of the car and began shouting, cursing and kicking his car.

He said that he left and drove to the Eighth District station, where he described the events to Officer William Forster in the operations room.

Forster put out a "flash" description on police radio of the car and its occupants. Forster told Internal Affairs that when Lopez Jr. described the incident, he never mentioned the possibility that any of the car's occupants might be armed.

But in his statement to Internal Affairs later, Lopez Jr. said that in the shouting at the accident scene, one of the occupants of the Mazda, a Hispanic male, "was reaching under his shirt and he was saying, 'Get him the f--- out of the car; I got something for him.' "

Ruiz, the Lukoil clerk, told investigators that after officers arrived following the altercation in the convenience store, he heard Officer Lopez give his son some instructions in Spanish, including, " 'Say he had a gun.' "

Lopez Sr. and Jr. both denied that, saying that the younger Lopez speaks almost no Spanish. Officer Lopez told investigators that his son had said from the beginning that a Hispanic man from the Mazda "lifted up his shirt and made a motion as if he had a gun."

The Internal Affairs report noted, however, that Officer Lopez's conduct inside the Lukoil store seemed inconsistent with a suspicion that he might be confronting armed suspects.

The video showed that he never frisked any of the young men, and at times left them unattended on the floor of the store while he went outside. When asked by Internal Affairs why he had allowed his son into the store if he thought someone had a gun and he was going to take police action, Lopez said: "I didn't even think about it. It happened so fast. It was bad judgment."

Ironically, Lopez Jr. had a .22-caliber Magnum revolver in his waistband during the accident and throughout the confrontation in the Lukoil, according to his statement to Internal Affairs. He had a permit to carry the weapon, he said in the statement.

The driver of the Mazda, Stephen Soda, also had a handgun in his glove compartment along with his carry permit, according to police. Police reviewed the permit and released Soda without charges. Neither weapon was drawn in the incident.

Officer Lopez said that before he grabbed Lawless in the store, he'd ordered her and her friends to the floor several times, and that the three men had complied.

But the video shows that Lopez grabbed Lawless' neck no more than five seconds after he entered the store, and that all three men were still standing.

He said that he had his gun in his hand with his finger outside the trigger, and "used three fingers of my gun hand and gripped her shirt to try to get her to the floor because she was still swinging at me."

The video doesn't show Lawless swinging at Lopez then. She does appear to swing at Lopez and his son later, after they stopped her from leaving the store, and Lopez Jr. appeared to push her back over the store counter by her neck.

Officer Lopez said that Lawless "told me I was a Mexican, I was here illegally, and that I should go back to Mexico." Lopez Jr. said she was "calling my father a f---ing s--c, a Mexican."

Lawless acknowledged in an interview that in her fury she "got racial."

Lawless wasn't seriously injured in the incident, but she said she had pain in her neck, back and jaw.


A night in jail



She spent the night in a jail cell, where she counted 23 mice and saw feces on the walls, she said.

"Somebody had probably had s--- on their hands and smudged it all over the wall," she said. "In the morning I threw up. It smelled so bad."

She said that she was emotionally traumatized for months, and afraid of the police. She moved to Florida earlier this year.

The District Attorney's Office reviewed the case and declined to prosecute Officer Lopez in December. Eight days later, he was reissued his weapon and returned to full duty.

But he may yet face discipline from the Police Department.

The Internal Affairs report concluded that Lopez had verbally abused Lawless and that he had pushed his gun into her neck.

Investigators did not sustain a charge of physical abuse based on Lawless' reported injuries. The report cited a lack of visible signs of injury on her arrest photograph, and said a "very minor scratch/abrasion to her left chin area . . . may have occurred at any point during Ms. Lawless' resistance to P/O Lopez's attempts to restrain Ms. Lawless or during her physical confrontation with Alberto Lopez Jr. when she tried to flee the store."

The report noted that Lawless was treated for bruises and abrasions at Frankford Hospital-Torresdale (now Aria Health's Torresdale Campus), two days after the incident, but that efforts to secure further medical records from her attorney had been unsuccessful.

The Internal Affairs report concluded that Lopez had committed "departmental violations," and it expressed skepticism about the claim that one of the four occupants of the Mazda appeared to have had a gun.

The report also noted that "by taking his son inside the Lukoil to confront the complainants, P/O Lopez made a dangerous situation even more volatile because of his close relationship with the alleged victim of the earlier attack."

Lawless' attorney, Alan Yatvin, said that he was exploring a civil suit on her behalf.

"I'm troubled by the conduct of the officer, about his telling a story that lacks credibility, and about the fact he thought he could get away with it," Yatvin said.

He said it's also troubling that so many officers apparently sought to dispose of the video, the key evidence in the case, and suffered no consequence after Internal Affairs investigated.

At the end of his interview with Internal Affairs, Lopez was asked if he would like to add anything that would assist the investigation.

"I would like to have used better judgment that night," the officer said.

Source with video

Third biker involved in officers' 145 mph joyride



The off-duty Gahanna police officer and off-duty state trooper who were clocked driving motorcycles at speeds of more than 145mph on I-70 last month were not alone.

An audio recording between the trooper who clocked their speed and the one who pulled them over indicated that there was a third motorcycle driver who was not given a ticket.

Trooper Jason E. Highsmith, 35, received a 147-mile-per-hour speeding ticket four days after the stop at about 4:30 p.m. on June 28. Gahanna police Officer Christopher Thomas, 33, got a 149-mile-per-hour-ticket eight days after the incident.

Video from the patrol car also shows the trooper who pulled them over and the off-duty trooper laughing and trying to figure out whether they were in the same class at the State Highway Patrol Academy.

Then Trooper Bryan D. Lee, 25, of the Granville post turned off the audio in his car.

Trooper Jason E. Highsmith, 35, received a ticket for speeding at 147 mph four days after the stop about 4:30p.m. June 28. Gahanna Police Officer Christopher Thomas, 33, got a ticket for driving at 149 mph eight days after the incident. The speed limit on that section of I-70, near the Buckeye Lake exit, is 65 mph.

Speeding is a minor misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of a $150 fine and a three-year license suspension. Ohio doesn't have an automatic suspension law or a harsher charge for excessive speed.

Neither officer was charged with reckless driving or racing.

Tom Hunter, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Public Safety, said department officials are not going to second-guess an officer's judgment on what charges to file. However, he said, there will be a full administrative review of the behavior of both the ticketer and the ticketed.

Lt. Shawn Davis, a patrol spokesman, said troopers generally are instructed to leave the audio on for an entire traffic stop. Davis said Lee did not issue the tickets at the scene because he was consulting a supervisor.

A separate audio recording along with video from the patrol cruiser was released yesterday. It includes conversations between the airplane pilot timing the motorcycles, Lee, and another trooper who flagged down the vehicles and then joined Lee.

"I got a couple of motorcycles that look like bullets coming at you," the pilot said.

Davis identified the pilot of the plane as Trooper Chris Hasty.

Hasty apologized to the troopers on the ground because he hadn't noticed the third motorcycle before he began timing the other two. That meant he had no proof of the third one's speed.

"He's definitely guilty, but I've got no watch time on him," Hasty said.

A trooper on the ground commented that 149 mph was the fastest speed he'd ever seen on patrol. The pilot said it "scared the tar out of me."

Highsmith pleaded not guilty this week in Licking County Municipal Court. His trial is pending.

Thomas is scheduled to be arraigned next week.

Before Lee switched off the audio on the patrol video, Highsmith can be heard explaining what happened when they hit a straightaway on the interstate.

"It opened up, and I looked at Chris (Thomas) and was like, '(expletive) it. I'm gunning it.'"

Neither officer would face disciplinary action until after the court cases, department spokesmen said.

Highsmith was reassigned from the patrol's Columbus motorcycle unit to the Delaware post.

Thomas has been on leave for an on-duty injury since December, said Gahanna Deputy Chief Ken Bell.

Source

Cop Under Investigation After Punching Woman In Face

(yes, that's really her in the pic.)

STAMFORD, Conn. (WPIX) - The Stamford Police Department is investigating the conduct of a police officer who assaulted a woman during an arrest last week, a police spokesman confirmed to PIX News Wednesday.

According to Lt. Sean Cooney, Officer Gregory Zach punched Brenda Mazariegos, 40, while arresting her for driving without a license Friday in the parking lot behind The Palms nightclub - a nightclub Mazariegos owns.

A photograph of a Mazariegos, that has been splashed on local newspapers and TV stations, shows the victim with a large bump on her head - a result from her alleged assault by the officer.

Mazariegos has yet to file a formal complaint, but it's not preventing the department from investigating the incident.

Cooney told PIX News that officials are pursuing the investigation due in part by the serious allegations and the fact that the incident occurred at a public event. The release of the photograph has made the incident a high-profile case, prompting a probe in the assault, he added.

According to Cooney, the officer is not denying that he assaulted Mazariegos and in fact says the woman was the one who attacked him first, forcing him to protect himself by punching her back, he said.

A surveillance video from the parking lot where the assault occurred has surfaced, however investigators say the video is too grainy to make anything out.

"We hold our officers to very high standards and know that the public is entitled to expect nothing less," said Cooney.

PIX News made several attempts Wednesday to reach out to Mazariegos, but phone calls were not immediately returned.

Source

Texas City Caught Trapping Drivers with Short Yellows
Baytown, Texas discloses bank accounts of red light camera ticket recipients, admits using short yellows.

A Texas motorist caught the city of Baytown using short yellows to trap motorists at a photo enforced intersection and of failing to protect sensitive private information. At a press conference yesterday, Byron Schirmbeck and his attorney, Randall Kallinen, announced that the city had agreed to drop a $75 ticket issued on April 12 for making a right-hand turn just 0.2 seconds after the light had turned red at the intersection of West Baker and Garth Roads. The yellow time at this intersection was set at just 3.1 seconds, even though state guidelines indicate that the yellow should have lasted no less than 4 seconds.

"I informed my councilman and he set up an interview with the police legal advisor and head of the red light camera program," Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. "They reluctantly admitted the amber times were too low but don't admit any wrongdoing or have any explanation."

Police reviewed the situation and ordered the yellow time at the intersection raised to 4.5 seconds on June 5. At least five other pending tickets will be dismissed, but Schirmbeck believes hundreds of other motorists may have been trapped by the same short yellow and deserve full refunds.

A small change in the length of the yellow warning period can make a significant difference. The vast majority of "violations" caught on camera happen after drivers misjudge the end of the yellow light by less than 0.25 seconds -- literally the blink of an eye (view chart). According to a report by the California State Auditor, nearly 80 percent of that state's tickets were issued for violations that took place less than one second into the red. By adding an extra 1.4 seconds to the yellow, violations should plunge at the intersection of Baker and Garth by more than 80 percent.

The shortened yellow helped boost violations, allowing American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to issue $222,587 worth of tickets in the month of April alone. Of this amount, ATS took a 55 percent cut, even though Texas law specifically bans per-ticket contract arrangements. Baytown cited a grandfather loophole clause in the law as the reason it has continued the practice.

Baytown has also failed to implement any privacy protections for the sensitive personal information accessed and stored by its vendor, ATS. Schirmbeck showed TheNewspaper documents provided by the city that contained unredacted personal information on every motorist cited by the red light camera program since May 2008. This information included the full bank account and routing numbers of anyone who paid by check.

"That's a huge problem, in my opinion," Schirmbeck said.

Source

Oklahoma trooper’s lawyer says EMT escalated situation

Video on source page - click

By Carlos Miller
As the pressure mounts to fire the Oklahoma State Trooper who pulled an ambulance over, then placed a paramedic in a chokehold, the trooper’s attorney said the paramedic had it coming to him.

In a press conference today, attorney Gary James said Trooper Daniel Martin had a legal right to pull the ambulance over because it failed to yield to him as he was speeding by with sirens wailing and emergency lights flashing.

Nevermind the fact that Martin was only using his lights and sirens to pick up his wife for what appears to be nothing but a joyride.

Martin’s attorney also claims that EMT Maurice White escalated the situation by challenging the trooper’s authority, even though the trooper was committing a felony by interfering with the transport of an emergency patient.

And even though the video...

Click here

vividly proves that Martin was the only person escalating the situation.

Meanwhile, a petition to fire Martin created by a Miami librarian and introduced on Photography is Not a Crime has already surpassed 2,000 signatures, even though it’s been less than 48 hours since it was first posted.

The librarian, Theo Karantsalis, also interviewed retired South Florida police officer Glenn Rice in the above video. Rice was the first person to sign the petition. I was the second.

Martin is currently on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, which is probably why he feels he needs a lawyer because prosecutors have already determined they are not going to file charges against him.

Check out the original video



shot by a family member of the patient.

Prison for Chicago cop who beat man in wheelchair

CHICAGO (AP) — A Chicago police officer caught on hospital security footage repeatedly striking a man who was handcuffed and shackled to a wheelchair has been sentenced to more than three years in federal prison.

William Cozzi stood expressionless as U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning imposed the sentence Thursday.

Cozzi had pleaded guilty to a civil rights violation for inflicting the beating in a hospital emergency room.

The man was the victim of a stabbing and had been brought to the hospital. Cozzi was sent to the hospital to investigate.

Cozzi had earlier pleaded guilty to a state misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to 18 months of probation. But Chicago police Superintendent Jody Weis, a former FBI official, referred the case to the federal government.

Source

Cops get owned for trying to arrest man for filming them from his own garden

Film-maker Darren Pollard was clearing up flood rubbish from his front garden when he noticed the police and a teenager opposite his house. Darren retrieved his camera and this is what he filmed...

Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH! (9;02)

Photographer NOT Terrorist

Bostonist loves our Flickr photographers and we love freedom of speech. That's why we're always appalled when police hassle law abiding photographers while they exercise their First Amendment right to take photographs in public. That's what apparently happened last week.

Last Thursday morning, Joe, a local photographer, stopped at Mary O’Malley park in Chelsea for a few pictures of the Tobin Bridge and the surrounding area (boats, docks, etc). After about 10 minutes he decided to get back on the road, but two patrol cars arrived and blocked him in. Joe says that the two officers got out of their patrol cars and began questioning him aggressively about what he was doing. Joe explained the situation to the officers. The officer explained to him that he was being stopped for taking photos and that the area is “under heavy surveillance” and that “photographing was not allowed” since it is a “protected area.”

There are no laws, including the Patriot Act, that forbid photography in public parks. Public parks are by their very nature, public and therefore are not a “protected area.” Joe explained that he was a photographer and that he took pictures around Chelsea all the time without incident. The officers asked for his ID, and some credentials to prove he was a photographer. Photography is a constitutionally protected form of free speech in the US, as the US Supreme Court has ruled many times over.

The police officers ran their standard license and vehicle registration checks and then told Joe that he could not photograph in the area, take pictures of the bridge, or the LNG (liquefied natural gas) area. Joe again explained that he wasn’t doing anything wrong and was just putting together images for a stock photography site. One officer asked to see the pictures, and then told Joe he had to delete them, and then show him the review to confirm deletion. They also questioned him about other photos on his camera from a previous night.

Although Joe agrees that the police officer did ask, and not demand, he let them see his photos, he didn’t feel that he could refuse. Joe was under no obligation to let the officer see the pictures without a court order. An officer cannot force you to delete photos on a digital camera or ruin a roll of film in a film camera without a court order.

Joe was obviously upset by what he considered to be unfair treatment by the Chelsea Police Department. He contacted the department and was referred to Internal Affairs and was told that they have to investigate if someone reports a situation. No problem there, we expect our police departments to do just that. He was also told that next time he wants to photograph there he is to call and let the office in charge know that he has been OK’d for photography.

But that's absurd. Joe has absolutely no obligation to call the police for permission to photograph. He has a first amendment right to take photographs. When Joe made the point about being asked to delete the photos, the officer from Internal Affairs said they should have said something to the effect of “Would you delete the images to clear up any suspicion.” The officer reportedly added that when it comes to the LNG, the State Police might make the same inferences. Apparently, hassling law abiding citizens is common there. Chelsea police had not returned a request for comment by the time this post was published.

It's an example of how our basic Constitutional rights are slipping away. Either by giving them away (phoning the police before taking pictures) or by having them taken from us (being intimidated by officers on threat of arrest). Although this particular story relates to photographers the fact is that this could have been anyone in the area that day or any other day. This Bostonist certainly isn’t anti-police, in fact as a former EMT/Firefighter I think most of our police officers do a fantastic job under very stressful conditions. But we also need our police to understand that not everyone is a terrorist, and threatening innocent people with arrest is not the answer.

Photographers, arm yourselves with information. Always carry The Photographers' Bill of Rights in your camera bag to show police who try to keep you from exercising them.

Photographers' Bill of Rights

Source

Girl 'hit by police car at 90mph'

A Newcastle schoolgirl was hit by a police car which had accelerated to more than 90mph only seconds before, a court has heard.

Hayley Adamson, 16, was struck by the marked vehicle and killed instantly as she crossed Denton Road in the Scotswood area of the city in May 2008.


Pc John Dougal, 41, has denied causing death by dangerous driving.


Newcastle Crown Court was told the car's blue lights or siren had not been activated.

Mr Dougal was on patrol in the 30mph zone when his vehicle's automatic number plate recognition system alerted him to a passing car - indicating it could potentially be linked to a crime.


He was attempting to catch up with the car when Hayley, of Cedar Road, Fenham, stepped into the road ahead of him.

He braked and swerved but was unable to avoid hitting her.

Her family wept as the jury were shown CCTV footage of the incident.

Prosecutor Andrew Dallas described Pc Dougal's driving as a "grossly disproportionate" response to the situation.

"Driving at such an extreme speed at night in a residential area was highly dangerous," he said.

"It was even more dangerous to do so without using any of the specialist warning devices available to him.

"The speed and lack of warning by the driver not only represented dangerous driving but were also in any fair view significant causes of Hayley's tragic death that night."

The trial continues.

Police Chief Gets Into Car Accident While Checking His Blackberry

Just as politicians and the police have been increasingly cracking down on drivers who are using mobile phones for texting and emailing while driving, a police chief in the Seattle suburb of Federal Way has issued an apology for hitting another car while checking his Blackberry. Apparently it was a minor accident, that occurred when the chief, Brian Wilson, was stopped at a traffic light in an unmarked police car. He started checking his Blackberry and took his foot off the brake, allowing the car to roll forward into another vehicle. The chief says he takes full responsibility for the accident and is mortified... Of course, it sounds like no legal action will be taken even though Washington was the first state to enact anti-texting while driving laws.

Source

No charges, but police can keep the cash

Going 62 in a 50-mph zone, a Jeep barreled west on a slippery, snow-covered Airport Expressway on Valentine’s Day and blew past an Allen County sheriff’s squad car.

One traffic stop later, two men inside the Jeep were outside being patted down by officers. They acted nervous, according to a police report. At one point they looked as if they wanted to fight; at another they looked as if they wanted to flee.

In the Jeep’s back seat, police found more than $26,000 in cash wrapped in a stocking cap.

Though officers held the two men for a short time in squad cars, they were eventually released without charges, save for the driver receiving a citation for driving with a suspended license.

And the money? The police kept it.

Having that much cash is not a crime, but police have the right to seize it if they suspect it has been used or procured through criminal means. Most of the money seized comes from drug cases and can then be used by various law enforcement agencies.

And at least one local agency, the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office, has taken a more aggressive approach in forfeiture cases, with the amount of money in its state seizure fund growing from more than $53,000 in 2004 to more than $105,000 in 2008, according to Allen County’s Chief Deputy Prosecutor Michael McAlexander.

“We’ve gotten a little more aggressive,” said McAlexander, citing better communication with police in how confiscations work locally. “We’ve created a better process.”

In the situation with the $26,000, police seized the money because the driver could not give an adequate reason for having that much money. First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs. The passenger said he had no clue about the money.

Those factors allowed police to take the money.

“If it’s way, way over and above what a normal person will carry, and if things don’t add up (on how it was acquired), we take the money,” said Lt. Art Barile, head of the sheriff department’s vice and narcotics unit and the Allen County Drug Task Force, a multiagency unit run out of the sheriff’s department.

How often money is confiscated from people not charged with crimes is hard to determine, Barile said, but his best guess for his department is that it happens “maybe 10 percent of the time” his department performs a seizure.

Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards said her office seldom sees forfeitures without criminal charges attached.

Bob Trgovich, assistant U.S. attorney at the local federal court, said it’s not necessarily a rare practice for his office but it does happen, sometimes with more drawn-out cases.

“We had a case a few years ago where members of this conspiracy, over the course of two years, were stopped several times,” he said. “Each time they were stopped, they had large amounts of money.”

Though the processes may differ with each case and whether it’s handled by federal or state prosecutors, people who typically have money seized must file a claim if they want it back. They have to show how they got the money and that it was procured legally. Many don’t even file a claim, according to Trgovich.

“If you find money in a vehicle, and that’s all you find, many times (the people) in the vehicle don’t want to admit it’s theirs,” Trgovich said.

After money is seized by a law enforcement agency, prosecutors in either state or federal court take over a process that determines where the money ends up. Typically, federal prosecutors handle large amounts of money, such as the $26,000 case, which Barile said has been forwarded to federal authorities. Local prosecutors take the cases with smaller amounts of cash, from $1,000 to $4,000, according to Richards.

Depending on the subtleties of the case and what court is involved, the money usually ends up divided among prosecutors and the police agency or agencies responsible for seizing the money. The process can be long and intricate, though.

“It’s a complicated nightmare, actually,” said Auburn Police Chief Martin McCoy, who sometimes is a spokesman for the IMAGE Drug Task Force, made up of officers from Noble, LaGrange, Steuben and DeKalb counties.

In a state seizure case, the arresting agency must show how much money it used in the investigation that led to the seizure. Prosecutors, too, have to show how much money went into the litigation for the seizures.

“You’re supposed to take your law enforcement expenses out of (the seized money), which could be anything from the attorney’s time to write a search warrant, the cost of doing the forfeiture, the court costs, or (drug) buy money for the police department,” Richards said.

In some cases, that money gets funneled back into the respective agencies involved with the seizures, according to Richards, McCoy and Barile.

The money left over after expenses goes to the state’s Common School Fund, which was established in 1851 and has historically been used to provide low-interest loans for school-building projects.

For example, if police seize $5,000 and the department and prosecutor show the investigation and litigation into the case cost $2,000, the two agencies will probably split $2,000 of the money. The remaining $3,000 goes to the Common School Fund.

A federal seizure typically goes quicker, McCoy said, and the Common School Fund is not in play. A police agency can receive up to 75 percent of the money it seizes, according to Barile and McCoy, while prosecutors at the federal level keep the rest.

According to McCoy, his department does not seize a lot of money, and maybe has one case a year that results in the confiscation of more than $5,000. When the Auburn Police Department seizes money, whatever is recouped usually goes into a general fund for the city of Auburn, and the police department does not see that money again.

If the IMAGE Task Force takes the money, it usually gets that cash back. But, he said, it’s not like seizures are in abundance in his jurisdiction.

“We’re not getting rich on seizures, by any means,” he said.

Source