The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive
04-30-2014, 01:19 PM
#2142
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, won on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers can search, regardless.)
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police will likely rejoice over what’s been a long-standing issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, won on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers can search, regardless.)
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with the search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police will likely rejoice over what’s been a long-standing issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2014, 01:20 PM
#2143
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/na...lowTwt_LABrand
A New York City police officer has been charged with possession of child pornography after investigators say they found videos on his computer of underage girls engaged in lewd sex acts.
Officer Yong Wu was arraigned Monday in Queens on charges of promoting and possessing sexual performance by a child.
The NYPD says it has suspended Wu. He is being held in lieu of $50,000 cash bail.
An attorney for Wu did not immediately return a message.
Investigators say they arrested Wu while looking into people sharing child pornography files of on peer-to-peer networks. They say Wu was sharing at least 60 files of interest.
Officer Yong Wu was arraigned Monday in Queens on charges of promoting and possessing sexual performance by a child.
The NYPD says it has suspended Wu. He is being held in lieu of $50,000 cash bail.
An attorney for Wu did not immediately return a message.
Investigators say they arrested Wu while looking into people sharing child pornography files of on peer-to-peer networks. They say Wu was sharing at least 60 files of interest.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2014, 04:13 PM
#2144
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
I suppose this will get to the US Supremes pretty soon or in a few years and after a lot of cops have taken a lot of folks "suspicious" money and property.
Even if found unconstitutional I don't suppose they will be required to much restitution.
Reply
0
0
05-01-2014, 09:41 AM
#2145
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,076
Total Cats: 6,630
It already has. Many times.
The concept of warrantless search of vehicles has been tested before the US Supreme court on numerous occasions, going back as far as the 1920s, and the recent Pennsylvania decision is consistent with the general outlook of the higher court.
The basic underlying concept is that that Fourth Amendment isn't a blanket prohibition against all warrantless search and seizure, but merely against unreasonable searches and seizures, and in areas where we have what the court calls a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which the constitution describes as "persons, houses, papers, and effects."
There is a corollary philosophy in the law, called the "open fields" doctrine, which says that we have very little expectation of privacy in public places. So if you're walking down the street, anyone (including the police / govt) can photograph you, record your conversations, capture your farts in a jar for later analysis, etc.
Cars have historically been interpreted to occupy a sort of hazy middle-ground between the two. They are not open-fields, but they are also not the same as your domicile (yes, this includes RVs and trailers. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) and Oregon v. Finlay, 257 Or App 581 (2013).) So there is a diminished expectation of privacy when you are in your car in a public place.
Over the years, the Court has developed what is broadly known as the Carroll Doctrine (and now sometimes called the automobile exception) as a form of guidance for law enforcement in the warrantless search of vehicles, referring back to the landmark 1925 decision in Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132), where the court upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle that discovered illegal liquor (remember, prohibition), and the subsequent conviction of the driver.
Many later cases have upheld warrantless search of vehicles without consent, always based on some form or another of probable cause / reasonable suspicion, even if the element of exigency is absent.
In fact, in the article which Brain linked to and you quoted, DA Stedman is specifically quoted as saying "This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law" and Penn Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery is quoted as finding that "The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search... We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so..."
TL;DR: you can whine about it all you like, but merely jumping up and down and shouting "They can't do this, it's unconstitutional!" does not change the fact that, according to the US Supreme Court, warrantless searches of cars are, in fact, constitutional in many circumstances.
Further reading:
Warrantless Searches of Motor Vehicles
Can the Police Legitimately Search My Vehicle Without a Warrant? - FindLaw
Does the police officer need probable cause to use the automobile exception?
FindLaw | UNITED STATES v. ROSS
Automobile exception | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Criminal Procedure - Automobile Exception To The Warrant Requirement
Also, NYC cop does bad **** while drunk: Drunk NYPD officer allegedly fires 13 rounds into car unprovoked, injuring driver | PIX 11
The concept of warrantless search of vehicles has been tested before the US Supreme court on numerous occasions, going back as far as the 1920s, and the recent Pennsylvania decision is consistent with the general outlook of the higher court.
The basic underlying concept is that that Fourth Amendment isn't a blanket prohibition against all warrantless search and seizure, but merely against unreasonable searches and seizures, and in areas where we have what the court calls a "reasonable expectation of privacy," which the constitution describes as "persons, houses, papers, and effects."
There is a corollary philosophy in the law, called the "open fields" doctrine, which says that we have very little expectation of privacy in public places. So if you're walking down the street, anyone (including the police / govt) can photograph you, record your conversations, capture your farts in a jar for later analysis, etc.
Cars have historically been interpreted to occupy a sort of hazy middle-ground between the two. They are not open-fields, but they are also not the same as your domicile (yes, this includes RVs and trailers. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) and Oregon v. Finlay, 257 Or App 581 (2013).) So there is a diminished expectation of privacy when you are in your car in a public place.
Over the years, the Court has developed what is broadly known as the Carroll Doctrine (and now sometimes called the automobile exception) as a form of guidance for law enforcement in the warrantless search of vehicles, referring back to the landmark 1925 decision in Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132), where the court upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle that discovered illegal liquor (remember, prohibition), and the subsequent conviction of the driver.
Many later cases have upheld warrantless search of vehicles without consent, always based on some form or another of probable cause / reasonable suspicion, even if the element of exigency is absent.
In fact, in the article which Brain linked to and you quoted, DA Stedman is specifically quoted as saying "This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law" and Penn Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery is quoted as finding that "The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search... We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so..."
TL;DR: you can whine about it all you like, but merely jumping up and down and shouting "They can't do this, it's unconstitutional!" does not change the fact that, according to the US Supreme Court, warrantless searches of cars are, in fact, constitutional in many circumstances.
Further reading:
Warrantless Searches of Motor Vehicles
Can the Police Legitimately Search My Vehicle Without a Warrant? - FindLaw
Does the police officer need probable cause to use the automobile exception?
FindLaw | UNITED STATES v. ROSS
Automobile exception | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Criminal Procedure - Automobile Exception To The Warrant Requirement
Also, NYC cop does bad **** while drunk: Drunk NYPD officer allegedly fires 13 rounds into car unprovoked, injuring driver | PIX 11
Last edited by Joe Perez; 05-01-2014 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Fixed formatting of Justice Seamus McCaffery quote.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:02 AM
#2146
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
TL;DR: you can whine about it all you like, but merely jumping up and down and shouting "They can't do this, it's unconstitutional!" does not change the fact that, according to the US Supreme Court, warrantless searches of cars are, in fact, constitutional in many circumstances.
I wasn't jumping up and down shouting that.
I was jumping up and down shouting: Hey, if you live in PA, you can't smoke weed in your car and expect it not to get searched by cops anymore if you simply refuse, because the smell of pot gives the proper cause to search it. But this sucks for you PA, because any officer can just say he smelled pot, and doesn't need to, and cant, produce any proof to show/establish the cause.
td;dr dont roll down your windows if you get pulled over in PA.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:09 AM
#2147
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Police snatched a phone from a disabled wheelchair-bound veteran who was recording them in front of a VA hospital in Tennessee as they harassed him over his service dog for not wearing a muzzle Tuesday.
However, there is no law that requires service dogs to wear muzzles. And there is certainly no law against him recording them.
However, there is no law that requires service dogs to wear muzzles. And there is certainly no law against him recording them.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:13 AM
#2148
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Cops REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY hate dogs.
even their own:
My question is, will they find him guilty of assault on a police officer?
even their own:
The Mayor of Hammond responded to our spreading of this video:
NWI Gazette
A video appeared on Youtube today purportedly showing a Hammond Police Officer abusing his department K9. As soon as word reached Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr, he took immediate action. The Mayor issued the following statement in response to the video:
NWI Gazette
A video appeared on Youtube today purportedly showing a Hammond Police Officer abusing his department K9. As soon as word reached Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr, he took immediate action. The Mayor issued the following statement in response to the video:
Anybody who loves dogs as much as I do is always saddened and shocked anytime you hear of a dog’s abuse. When you find out it happened with an employee of yours, it makes it that much more shocking and disturbing. Please know that the Hammond PD does not condone that type of behavior of any of it’s officers, nor is it tolerated in this administration.
The officer in question is being placed on Administrative Leave immediately, pending a further investigation. He will have his canine removed from his control during this leave while the PD further investigates this matter.
The officer in question is being placed on Administrative Leave immediately, pending a further investigation. He will have his canine removed from his control during this leave while the PD further investigates this matter.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:16 AM
#2149
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
or hold your hands at 10 and 2:
Federal court rules that stiff driving posture is suspicious behavior | Police State USA
Federal court rules that stiff driving posture is suspicious behavior | Police State USA
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:34 AM
#2150
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Police can’t knock on your door and wait at front steps forever, court holds
The police are allowed to walk up to a house and knock on the door in an attempt to speak to residents inside. But if no one answers, how long can they stay at the door? Not for as long as 45 minutes, holds the Court of Appeals of Indiana in J.K. v. State. The court bases this conclusion on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Florida v. Jardines, which held that a knock-and-talk is permitted by implied social custom but that other steps such as bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front steps go too far. From the new decision:
The officers’ actions in this case extended well beyond the implied invitation to approach a citizen’s front door. The officers surrounded J.K.’s residence around one o’clock in the morning and repeatedly knocked on the door for over forty-five minutes. During that span of time, the officers peered through the windows and continuously yelled into the house demanding that an occupant answer the door. The Supreme Court has said officers may “approach a home and knock, precisely because that is ‘no more than any private citizen might do.’” Jardines, 133 S.Ct. at 1416 (quoting King, 131 S.Ct. at 1862). There is no doubt that the officers’ conduct in this case went far beyond anything that would ordinarily be expected to occur on one’s doorstep. If three men with guns and flashlights were to surround the a average person’s home in the wee hours of the morning, knock for over forty-five minutes, and yell inside demanding the occupants open the door, this situation would—like the Court noted in Jardines—inspire that homeowner to call the police.
Setting aside the officers’ conduct while on the curtilage, the length of time the officers remained there would alone constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers knocked but did not receive an answer, ostensibly because the occupants chose not to answer. At this time, the officers’ investigation reached a “conspicuously low point.” King, 131 S.Ct. at 1862. But rather than vacate J.K.’s curtilage and attempt to obtain a warrant, the officers simply remained on the curtilage for an additional forty-five minutes. This is not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. . . . When a Hoosier exercises his constitutional right to remain inside his home, law enforcement may not pitch a tent on the front porch and wait in hopes of obtaining evidence.
Setting aside the officers’ conduct while on the curtilage, the length of time the officers remained there would alone constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers knocked but did not receive an answer, ostensibly because the occupants chose not to answer. At this time, the officers’ investigation reached a “conspicuously low point.” King, 131 S.Ct. at 1862. But rather than vacate J.K.’s curtilage and attempt to obtain a warrant, the officers simply remained on the curtilage for an additional forty-five minutes. This is not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. . . . When a Hoosier exercises his constitutional right to remain inside his home, law enforcement may not pitch a tent on the front porch and wait in hopes of obtaining evidence.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:36 AM
#2151
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Sober driver arrested for OWI when deputy crashes into her car | FOX6Now.com
A Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Deputy rolls through a stop sign and causes a violent crash. So why was the victim placed under arrest?
A FOX6 Investigation finds that a deputy’s changing story may have changed one woman’s life forever.
Tanya Weyker was hurt so badly, she couldn’t blow into a breath-testing device or perform field sobriety tests. But a Sheriff’s deputy arrested her for drunk driving anyway. And the County hung those charges over her head for nearly a year, even long after blood tests proved she was perfectly sober.
Tanya Weyker remembers it clearly. Not just the crash that broke her neck in four places, but the false accusations that followed...
A FOX6 Investigation finds that a deputy’s changing story may have changed one woman’s life forever.
Tanya Weyker was hurt so badly, she couldn’t blow into a breath-testing device or perform field sobriety tests. But a Sheriff’s deputy arrested her for drunk driving anyway. And the County hung those charges over her head for nearly a year, even long after blood tests proved she was perfectly sober.
Tanya Weyker remembers it clearly. Not just the crash that broke her neck in four places, but the false accusations that followed...
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 08:39 AM
#2152
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
In Moriarty DWI arrest, Washington Township police officer denied motion to dismiss | NJ.com
Cop had no idea that his camera records 30 seconds before he flips on sirens...
A Gloucester County Superior Court judge rejected Washington Township police officer Joseph DiBuonaventura's motion to dismiss a grand jury's indictment on Friday.
DiBuonaventura, who is currently suspended without pay, is facing 14 criminal charges including official misconduct and falsifying a police report in connection with his July 2012 arrest of Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-4 of Washington Township) on charges of driving while intoxicated.
...
In his brief responding to the motion to dismiss, Curwin stated the video from DiBuonaventura's police vehicle clearly shows the officer waiting for Moriarty to pass by, speeding up to 80 miles per hour without lights or sirens to catch up to Moriarty — who is in the right lane the entire time — and then pulling him over. Curwin wrote that the video evidence contradicts DiBuonaventura's initial police report, which states he pulled Moriarty over for cutting him off in traffic.
Curwin said DiBuonaventura believed his motor vehicle recorder only turned on when lights and sirens were activated, and after learning the entire video was retrievable, wrote additional reports to cover his tracks.
The purpose of the grand jury is to deem only whether or not criminal charges should proceed, Curwin argued, and that Moriarty's actions before or after the arrest were irrelevant in that setting.
...
DiBuonaventura, who is currently suspended without pay, is facing 14 criminal charges including official misconduct and falsifying a police report in connection with his July 2012 arrest of Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-4 of Washington Township) on charges of driving while intoxicated.
...
In his brief responding to the motion to dismiss, Curwin stated the video from DiBuonaventura's police vehicle clearly shows the officer waiting for Moriarty to pass by, speeding up to 80 miles per hour without lights or sirens to catch up to Moriarty — who is in the right lane the entire time — and then pulling him over. Curwin wrote that the video evidence contradicts DiBuonaventura's initial police report, which states he pulled Moriarty over for cutting him off in traffic.
Curwin said DiBuonaventura believed his motor vehicle recorder only turned on when lights and sirens were activated, and after learning the entire video was retrievable, wrote additional reports to cover his tracks.
The purpose of the grand jury is to deem only whether or not criminal charges should proceed, Curwin argued, and that Moriarty's actions before or after the arrest were irrelevant in that setting.
...
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 09:02 AM
#2153
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
The officer's story has changed 3 times and nobody notices?? Are you serious?? There are many holes in thier story and nobody seems to nitice the huge differences in each story!!
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 12:32 PM
#2154
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 283
Total Cats: 0
I wasn't jumping up and down shouting that.
I was jumping up and down shouting: Hey, if you live in PA, you can't smoke weed in your car and expect it not to get searched by cops anymore if you simply refuse, because the smell of pot gives the proper cause to search it. But this sucks for you PA, because any officer can just say he smelled pot, and doesn't need to, and cant, produce any proof to show/establish the cause.
td;dr dont roll down your windows if you get pulled over in PA.
I was jumping up and down shouting: Hey, if you live in PA, you can't smoke weed in your car and expect it not to get searched by cops anymore if you simply refuse, because the smell of pot gives the proper cause to search it. But this sucks for you PA, because any officer can just say he smelled pot, and doesn't need to, and cant, produce any proof to show/establish the cause.
td;dr dont roll down your windows if you get pulled over in PA.
Comes to mind of a buddy with an ulcer and could not drink at all, though he would if he could. The guy left my house and got to next town where cop stopped him and smelled strong odor of alcohol on him.
Where it went bad for the guy was that he consented when offered to take the breath test. Then cop changed his mind and wanted blood and the guy refused.
One would think it reasonable that the smelling of drugs would need be backed up by someone with a dirty drug test for the drug claimed to have been smelled.
EDIT: That would be in some fantasy world where reason and justice was of any real concern.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 01:22 PM
#2156
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
...The cops kept his phone for two hours as they tried to get doctors to involuntarily commit him for mental health issues, but a trio of doctors, including a psychiatrist and a psychologists, did not believe he needed to be committed after talking to him at length.
The cops gave him several citations, including one for “unlawful photography,” and another for disturbing the peace, but the only peace that was disrupted was by the peace officers themselves.
“They clearly believe that just because I’m disabled, that I am unable to stand up for my rights,” he said.
The cops gave him several citations, including one for “unlawful photography,” and another for disturbing the peace, but the only peace that was disrupted was by the peace officers themselves.
“They clearly believe that just because I’m disabled, that I am unable to stand up for my rights,” he said.
Within hours of this story being posted, leading to numerous phone calls to the police department at the James H Quillen VA Medical Center, MacRae was arrested at his home on a probation violation.
His daughter, Coy MacRae, 23, was home at the time and said the Washington County deputies who made the arrest never specified how exactly did he violate his probation.
But now he has a $10,000 bond, which he can’t afford, meaning he will likely remain in jail for up to 30 days, she said.
MacRae has been on probation for more than 10 years stemming from an incident with his ex-wife, Coy’s stepmother at the time, where they were arguing in a car.
His daughter, Coy MacRae, 23, was home at the time and said the Washington County deputies who made the arrest never specified how exactly did he violate his probation.
But now he has a $10,000 bond, which he can’t afford, meaning he will likely remain in jail for up to 30 days, she said.
MacRae has been on probation for more than 10 years stemming from an incident with his ex-wife, Coy’s stepmother at the time, where they were arguing in a car.
The cops that dealt with him, know him, and don't like him. They created crime and escalated a situation in order to flex their might.
Reply
0
0
05-02-2014, 01:26 PM
#2157
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
Cops Assault, Taser Wrong Man, Laugh About Framing Him “Someone drop the dope in here” | The Free Thought Project
watch the video.
gotta love how they still charged him with.....
drum roll...
recurring theme: resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
Reginald Johnson, has settled a civil lawsuit charging excessive force against the city of Seaford and a city police officer for $270,000.
According to Delaware Online, the incident that was the focus of Reginald Johnson’s suit was caught on police dashcam and showed two Seaford officers, who mistook Johnson for someone else, pulling over Johnson’s car, demanding he get out and without allowing Johnson much time to respond, shooting him with a Taser and roughly handcuffing him.
Moments later, after Johnson protests that he has done nothing wrong, two officers can be heard laughing and one joking about planting drugs in Johnson’s car; ”Someone drop the dope in here.”
At about 3:10 seconds in the video you can hear two of the officers talking which sounds like,
“Dude, we got the wrong guy.”
“Yeah.”
Johnson is kidnapped anyway.
According to the police report of the incident, officers were searching for an unnamed man in that area, and a tracking device appeared to indicate the cellphone of the man they were searching for was in Johnson’s car. The report, written by Russell, does not state if the cellphone was recovered during the arrest.
Russell also wrote that he deployed his Taser because he immediately became concerned for his safety when Johnson did not exit the car immediately.
Johnson was later charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, but both charges were subsequently dropped by prosecutors. He filed his federal lawsuit in December 2012.
In a statement released through his attorneys on Wednesday, Johnson said,
“I hope this settlement sends the message that what they did to me is not OK, and constitutional violations like this will not be tolerated in the future, period.”
According to Delaware Online, the incident that was the focus of Reginald Johnson’s suit was caught on police dashcam and showed two Seaford officers, who mistook Johnson for someone else, pulling over Johnson’s car, demanding he get out and without allowing Johnson much time to respond, shooting him with a Taser and roughly handcuffing him.
Moments later, after Johnson protests that he has done nothing wrong, two officers can be heard laughing and one joking about planting drugs in Johnson’s car; ”Someone drop the dope in here.”
At about 3:10 seconds in the video you can hear two of the officers talking which sounds like,
“Dude, we got the wrong guy.”
“Yeah.”
Johnson is kidnapped anyway.
According to the police report of the incident, officers were searching for an unnamed man in that area, and a tracking device appeared to indicate the cellphone of the man they were searching for was in Johnson’s car. The report, written by Russell, does not state if the cellphone was recovered during the arrest.
Russell also wrote that he deployed his Taser because he immediately became concerned for his safety when Johnson did not exit the car immediately.
Johnson was later charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, but both charges were subsequently dropped by prosecutors. He filed his federal lawsuit in December 2012.
In a statement released through his attorneys on Wednesday, Johnson said,
“I hope this settlement sends the message that what they did to me is not OK, and constitutional violations like this will not be tolerated in the future, period.”
gotta love how they still charged him with.....
drum roll...
recurring theme: resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
Reply
0
0
05-05-2014, 10:18 AM
#2158
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
I was pulled over for running a red light on my bicycle. When I tried to (lawfully) record Officer Rich of the 10th Precinct I was placed in handcuffs and arrested in 10 seconds flat.
Reply
0
0
05-05-2014, 10:25 AM
#2160
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
‘Suspicious’: Sober driver arrested for drunk driving after deputy runs stop sign and crashes into her car
Ten months after the accident, after a Sheriff’s Office internal investigation, Quiles admitted that his first statements were wrong and that he was at fault for the accident. Quiles was suspended for nine days for the accident, but never punished for his false report, despite, WITI notes, “a previous history of discipline for filing reports written by someone else.”
Even though Quiles has admitted fault and the district attorney has decided to not file charges against Weyker, she is still waiting for the county to pay her mounting medical bills, which her attorney says could top one million dollars. Ms. Weyker has filed a complaint against the arresting deputy and may file a civil rights lawsuit against the county.
Even though Quiles has admitted fault and the district attorney has decided to not file charges against Weyker, she is still waiting for the county to pay her mounting medical bills, which her attorney says could top one million dollars. Ms. Weyker has filed a complaint against the arresting deputy and may file a civil rights lawsuit against the county.
Reply
0
0
