 |
Menu Modules |
 |
|
|
Search |
|
|
|
|
California's Big Secret |
|
 vanliewal writes "Matt Lait and Scott Glover follow up in today's LA TIMES ("Privacy risk to police unclear") on the
failure of a bill (SB 1019) in the California state legislature which would have reopened to public
view administrative hearings on officer misconduct. The hearings have been closed since a
recent California Supreme Court decision.
Lait and Glover tracked down legislators who justified their votes on the grounds that making the
hearings public -- as they had been for decades -- would put officers' lives at risk. The TIMES
asked for examples of officers who had ever been harmed, or even threatened with harm, as a
result of the public hearings in the past. Answer: none.
This is because whatever the problem is, it's a new one, which wouldn't be reflected in the prior
history of these hearings.
That new problem is the internet. The police union's general counsel provided this questionable,
but helpful statement: "Once you have that name, it's easy to locate residences and addresses. ...
The example I use is any jerk sitting in a cave in Afghanistan with access to the Internet can
download it."
The statement is questionable because finding residential addresses on the internet can't be the
problem. If it were, officers wouldn't continue to give out their business cards, identify themselves
in court when they testify, wear nameplates on their uniforms, etc. Nor would judges give their
names in open court. Or prosecutors. These are ways that a criminal can easily obtain names of
people he or she doesn't like in his or her case, without any disciplinary hearing taking place. So
the concern is not the officers' home addresses. Those are strictly hidden from the internet.
Yes, the internet is the problem. But not due to an officer safety issue. Here's the problem: "Police
union leaders said that trial lawyers and reporters would mine the records to try to undercut the
credibility of officers."
That's the problem. Not officer safety. Officer credibility.
Over the last decades, California has gotten into the business of constantly moving a large
segment of its population in and out of jails and prisons, over and over. The policy, which the
public approves, is to deal with all sorts of societal problems -- poverty, mental disability,
substance abuse -- by throwing them into cages. Still homeless? Back to jail. Still addicted? Back
to jail. Still bothering the neighbors with your paranoia and delusions? Back to jail.
One defect of this policy is that it creates an ocean of criminal law enforcement litigation for the
courts to resolve. The due process protections of the U.S. Bill of Rights create a bottleneck for that
ocean to pass through. It's not feasible to respect the rights of the criminally accused to things like
probable cause before arrest; or to evidence collected without unlawful searches; or to uncoerced
confessions; when you've got such an ocean to take care of. The release valve for that ocean of
cases is law enforcement officers' false statements, in police reports and on the witness stand,
sometimes referred to as "testilying" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testilying). False statements
about why someone was pulled over in the first place; about alleged self-incrimination; about
whether someone consented to a search; statements like that. Without those false statements --
which admittedly include false statements against defendants who really are guilty, but also
convict the innocent -- the system would break down. The alternative would be to move from a
policy of cages, to a policy of treatment, education, counseling. And California isn't ready for that.
So its system routinely depends upon the false statements of police.
That system can't work without concealing the records of officers who have been caught lying in
the past. As police union officials fear, defense attorneys would be duty-bound to show those
records to the jury, and a lot of defendants, defendants who committed the charged conduct, as
well as innocent defendants, would escape the cage. Over time, the number of jurors would
increase who simply refuse to accept the word of a cop without some independent supporting
evidence. And court dockets would become totally unmanageable as more defendants opted for
jury trials, because those trials became more winnable.
So California has developed an "honor" system for controlling records of police dishonesty. In
order for a criminal defense attorney to see any iota of information from the personnel records of a
testifying officer who has been caught lying in the past, the attorney has to make one or more
"Pitchess" motions, at the end of which they may obtain incomplete skeletal traces from those
personnel records. This procedure typically takes months to complete. And this procedure
depends on the police independently deciding, on their "honor," what is, and what is not,
appropriate for the judge or the defense attorney to see. Those records are kept by the police, and
they only bring into court what they choose to bring, on their "honor."
There's plenty of room for error in this "honor" system. But if the LA TIMES wants to talk to criminal
defense attorneys about examples of such errors, it's unlikely any names will be mentioned. It's all
a big secret in California, by law.
If the disciplinary proceedings were again made public, then by conducting an internet search, a
criminal defense attorney could swiftly check to see whether the police in a particular case had
failed to disclose all incidents of an officer's prior dishonesty. Those incidents, given the amount
of false statements police are called upon to make, pile up. After five or ten years, too many
officers would be of no use to the system, because the jury could be shown that their statements
were not reliable. It's impossible to recruit enough new, "clean" officers to make up the difference.
So in California, by defeating this legislation, the system is keeping its officers "clean" by hiding
the dirt. That's how it works.
"
|
|
Posted by BoXeR on Monday, November 29 @ 23:00:00 CST (519 reads)
(Read More... | 47 bytes more | Score: 0)
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downside of Student Drug Tests |
|
Downside of Student Drug Tests
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n683/a05.html
Newshawk: http://www.drugwarfacts.org
Pubdate: Sun, 03 Jun 2007
Source: Journal Standard, The (Freeport, IL)
Copyright: 2007 The Journal Standard
Contact:
http://www.journalstandard.com/shared-content/perform/?domain_name=journalstandard.com&form_template=letters
Website: http://www.journalstandard.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3182
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n661/a08.html
Author: Robert Sharpe
THE DOWNSIDE OF STUDENT DRUG TESTS
The Stockton School Board needs to educate itself on the downside of student drug testing. Student involvement in after-school activities like sports has been shown to reduce drug use. They keep kids busy during the hours they are most likely to get into trouble.
Forcing students to undergo degrading urine tests as a prerequisite will only discourage participation. Drug testing may also compel marijuana users to switch to harder drugs to avoid testing positive. This is one of the reasons the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes student drug testing. Despite a short-lived high, marijuana is the only illegal drug that stays in the human body long enough to make urinalysis a deterrent.
Marijuana's organic metabolites are fat-soluble and can linger for days. More dangerous synthetic drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine and prescription pharmaceuticals are water-soluble and exit the body quickly. If you think drug users don't know this, think again. Anyone capable of running an Internet search can find out how to thwart a drug test.
Drug testing profiteers do not readily volunteer this information, for obvious reasons. The most commonly abused drug and the one most closely associated with violent behavior is almost impossible to detect with urinalysis. That drug is alcohol, and it takes far more student lives each year than all illegal drugs combined. Instead of wasting money on counterproductive drug tests, schools should invest in reality-based drug education.
Robert Sharpe, MPA
Policy Analyst - Common Sense for Drug Policy
Washington, D.C.
|
|
Posted by BoXeR on Monday, November 29 @ 23:00:00 CST (647 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release by USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA) |
|
Vince writes "Nonprofit Benefiting Families of Killed in Action Stands Up for Bill of Rights, Starts Press Room at Its Web Site
Americans celebrate Bill of Rights Day today, and a public-benefit corporation for killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW) families remembers that members of the U.S. military fought and died for the freedoms contained in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
San Jose, CA (I-Newswire) December 15, 2005 – Established just 7 days after Pearl Harbor on December 15, 1941, FDR initiated Bill of Rights Day, a celebration of the first ten amendments to the Constitution passed in 1791. To celebrate Bill of Rights Day today, the USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA) announces its complaint against what it describes as a repeat of a similar June 2000 incident before it incorporated. On October 7 of this year, Sunnyvale and San Jose police allegedly made an illegal and unnecessary raid on the small nonprofit helping families of U.S. killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW). The organization mentions upholding the Constitution for which their family members fought and died. It also established a press room at its www.usakia.org Web site which contains press releases and other information.
Reportedly over a dozen Sunnyvale and San Jose police raided the small nonprofit at gunpoint on October 7. The 8AM raid rudely awakened USAKIA’s president-assistant Webmaster, Vincent Bartning, who was 40 at the time, where he says police ordered him out of his room in a state of undress at gunpoint, then put him in tight handcuffs. Telling him he was "detained," he claims an illegal action under the California Penal Code, they intimidated him, telling him to shut-up and singling him out to take around the corner, disregarding his requests to loosen the handcuffs. Police had also allegedly ordered the residence’s owner outside in a state of undress and threatened to destroy property for entry.
Witnesses say police destroyed and seized property anyway, kicking in a wall and jimmying open a shed, the latter containing items donated to the nonprofit. Police did have an Arrest Warrant for an individual who was not there. Moreover, the owner told them the person lived in a separate room in a different part of the approximately 1,400-square-foot mobile home.
Mr. Bartning had a similar experience with San Jose Police back on June 18, 2000, for which he filed a lawsuit in 2001, Bartning vs. City of San Jose, case numbers C 01-20837-JF (RS) and C 03-02669 HRL, U.S. Appellate Court case numbers 03-16597 and 03-16678. In that incident, he says court papers even say police gained illegal entry. However, Vincent says he had run out of appeals earlier this year. He thinks this "new illegal raid," as he describes it, will give his case another chance.
In his June 2000 case, Mr. Bartning says San Jose admits its police actually questioned how many stars the U.S. flag has. Moreover, a lawyer from Bay Area Police Watch, a fellow nonprofit organization based in Oakland, wondered how police could confuse Mr. Bartning, who is about 5 feet 8 inches, with the person listed on the October 7 warrant as 6 feet 4! "It certainly is a great case of mistaken identity," Bay Area Police Watch’s lawyer said critically, "and not one that could be made very easily to say the least!" According to the plaintiff, San Jose also admitted in court do***ents its police illegally entered the premises in the 2000 incident, and the parties involved claim police searched illegally on October 7.
In their November 5 meeting, the nonprofit’s board advised its officers to resolve the matter as soon as possible but also reinforced their authority to pursue the matter legally. Mr. Bartning plans to pursue it on his own as well, but USAKIA values a quick resolution with San Jose and Sunnyvale.
A theory of Anglo-American law goes, "the king can do no wrong," so the government has to grant permission for someone to sue it. USAKIA filed claim number 05-06-033 with Sunnyvale about the matter, and it also filed claim number C-7983-05 with San Jose. The nonprofit had direct expenses because of the incident, including a locking doorknob on the shed police pried open. The Sunnyvale and San Jose police actions interrupted the public-benefit corporation’s business, and other complaints abound.
The USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA), based in San Jose, California, is an IRS-approved, tax-deductible and tax-exempt nonprofit. KIA families incorporated the 501(c)(3) organization in the fall of 2003 to benefit families of those killed in action and died of wounds while in the U.S. armed forces. Current services include memorials, membership, and it plans a new California Medal of Honor Project (CAMOHP). It also sells products honoring U.S. KIA. America Remembers KIA allows USAKIA the use of its trademarked KIA flag and symbol. See the organization's Web site at www.usakia.org for further information. USAKIA has opened a new press room at its Web site.
###
Contact Information
Dennis Malloy
USA KIA/DOW FAMILY FOUNDATION
http://www.usakia.org
(408) 954-8280
CR@usakia.org
"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broader search powers granted police during traffic stops |
|
 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday
during traffic stops, ruling that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check
out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be
carrying narcotics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: Site Design by www.geekonaleash.net ::
[ Page load time: 0.2458s | Server Uptime: , | Hits: 160,614 | Since: January 2010 ]
|
