Racine Police Department
Many people have questions about Mr. James Wells' traffic stop. From the office of the Chief, please see the below response.
From the Office of the Chief Public Commentary Ref. Oscar J. Wells Traffic Stop
This open letter to the public was prepared in response to a recent online post by Oscar James Wells regarding alleged misconduct (in the form of biased policing) against a member of the Racine Police Department. Following a thorough internal review of the facts and circumstances involved in this case (conducted by the Office of Professional Standards at the request of Mr. Wells), the findings of this internal matter are being released to the public in the interest of promoting organizational transparency. Equally important, in releasing the details of this internal review to the public, media outlets and Internet sources that have given any measure of credibility to the misinformation posted by Mr. Wells, shall have the opportunity to correct the record. It is important that all previously circulated misinformation be corrected, which will pave the way for the restoration of the character and professionalism of the officer wrongly accused in this case. It is also important to restore any lost public trust this inflammatory posting may have caused.
On Wednesday June 24, 2015 at 8:32am, Mr. Wells was the subject of a lawfully initiated traffic stop conducted in the City of Racine. Pursuant to this stop, Wells was issued a traffic citation for an equipment violation (failure to attach front license plate). A small portion of the final minutes of the traffic stop was recorded by Mr. Wells (via cell phone) and subsequently posted online. Within this video clip, Wells states he was asked if he had auto insurance, but he was not allowed to look for the insurance documentation. The allegation that Wells was not allowed to look for verification documents was quickly disproved by video evidence made available via RPD in-squad video recording data (see attached link).
After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances involved in this case, and after in-depth analysis the squad car video captured during this traffic stop, the allegations made by Mr. Wells were found to be completely baseless.
As confirmed via squad car video, the demeanor of the officer involved in this traffic stop was professional and courteous throughout this encounter. After introducing herself and announcing the probable cause for this stop, the officer requested that Mr. Wells produce his drivers license and proof of insurance. Wells experienced difficultly locating either of the requested documents. During this stop, the officer allowed Mr. Wells to search for the requested items in the glove compartment, visor area and center console. As Mr. Wells directed his attention to the rear seat area of the vehicle, Wells was directed to stop the search, as this information could be verified through alternative methods.
It should be noted that, in addition to the initial time Mr. Wells was allowed to search for the requested documents, he was afforded an extended period of search time (approximately 12 minutes) during the time the officer returned to her vehicle to verify Wells' drivers license status and to draft the referenced citation.
During the internal review into this matter (initiated at the request of Mr. Wells), it was determined that Wells had no valid insurance policy in place at the time of the traffic stop. The internal review further revealed that, in August of 2014, Wells was involved in a traffic matter in Milwaukee County, at which time he received a citation for operating a motor vehicle without insurance. Mr. Wells subsequently secured auto insurance; however, this policy had expired and was not in effect at the time of the most recent traffic stop.
It is now clear that Mr. Wells was not in position to provide proof of insurance, as policy was not current.
In response Wells' assertion that he was stopped on the basis of his race, an internal audit was conducted on all traffic stops conducted on the date Wells was stopped. The internal audit related no racial disparity in those stopped for traffic violations, as individuals of a balanced range of ethnic backgrounds were stopped and cited.
With respect to the traffic stop involving Mr. Wells, his conduct during this stop (in refusal to provide his fingerprint for identification purposes as requested), could have resulted in an additional charge for obstructing. The officer however elected to use discretion in not advancing this charge, which could have resulted in an in-custody arrest.
In initially electing to cite Mr. Wells for his failure to show proof of insurance, the officer in effect afforded Mr. Wells the benefit of the doubt, making the assumption that he in fact had a valid insurance policy in place. We now know this was not the case. Had Mr. Wells accepted the initial citation, he would have been exposed to a maximum fine of $10. It was not until Mr. Wells became argumentative, protesting the insurance-related citation that the decision was made to issue the alternate citation.
After a thorough review of the facts in this case, the video evidence clearly disproves the false allegations that remain online as of this time. However, the adverse impact of having the character and personal integrity of individual police officers attacked online is not as easily remedied.
This unfounded attack against any single member of our profession is in effect, an attack against the entire profession. Inaccurate and inflammatory online posts of this nature collectively contribute to the anti-police climate that leads to poor community relationships in some communities, and worse yet, the execution of police officers. While we enjoy great police community relations locally, the same cannot be said for many departments across the nation. The false narrative advanced by the inaccurate video posted by Mr. Wells does a disservice to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who risk their lives daily to enhance public safety.
In speaking with Mr. Wells directly regarding this matter, and advising him of the adverse impact of his actions, he stated that, in posting this video, it was not his intent that this matter be portrayed in the manner that has played out online. Mr. Wells however maintained his position that his was stopped as a result of bias, and a public apology was not warranted on his part.
The overall objective of this communication is to set the record straight, and to restore any lost or damaged credibility suffered by the officer involved in this traffic stop. In light of the facts as determined after a thorough review, all inaccurate online posts relating to this matter should be corrected or removed outright.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the many citizens who continue to support the department and our community policing philosophy and vision.

NY State Police Investigator Ronald R. Pierone Jr. and Lt. B. T Colwell Stole MY Drone under the color of law. I committed no crime and broke no law. He refused to return it. Just listen to what he says. After 2 hours they made me wait and still would not return my property. I will be filing a complaint and charges of theft per lawyers advice. Call or txt and let him know he can't get away with this criminal act! 518-858-9641 if the cell is off the Office number is 518-473-2967 and email is ronald.pierone@troopers.ny.gov

A 22-year-old Texas man and his brother face charges for an incident involving a motorized skateboard/scooter in a Houston mall over the weekend. They and their supporters, on the other hand, criticize a deputy’s use of force and the arrest in general.

Video of the encounter already in progress shows Jesse Valdez on his stomach in Willowbrook Mall, his arms being cuffed by a Precinct 4 Constable deputy behind his back.

“What is the reason, sir?” Valdez and his brother, Michael Roulhac who was filming on his cellphone, asked several times. “What am I getting arrested for?”

The deputy in the video said he was being arrested for “ignoring a police officer’s commands.”

Roulhac and Valdez insist in the video that he did nothing wrong.

“He was just riding his Segway-like vehicle and you decided to come up and take him off,” Roulhac said in the video, adding “it seems like you’re in the wrong officer.”

More officers arrived on the scene and asked Roulhac to back up. Roulhac, holding up the device Valdez was riding, asked if there were a law against it and was informed by another deputy that it was against mall policy. Roulhac went on to say that it seemed like the deputy was making up the policy on the fly.

One look at the mall’s policy posted on its website though reveals that ”operating unauthorized recreational and/or personal transportation devices in the shopping center” is considered a prohibited activity. Roulhac later posted on Facebook this same policy but wrote that they were never asked to leave and thus never refused to do so, which would have warranted an arrest.

Later in the video, Roulhac asked why a deputy had a Taser to Valdez’ back as commotion in the mall started to escalate.

...

According to KHOU-TV, Valdez was charged with resisting arrest and Roulhac could be charged with interfering with an investigation and inciting a riot.

...

The statement continued that the deputy tried to detain the suspect for disorderly conduct and accused him of resisting. Because force was used Constable Mark Herman told KTRK that a force board would review the incident.

After plugging in the words "****" and "*******" to Google, I got 825 million hits. That's four times the combined hits from "apple pie" (38 million), "New York Yankees" (65 million), "U.S. Constitution" (34 million) and "Bill of Rights" (173 million). If such a word is so widely used, and apparently without societal convulsions or dissolution of public morals, why punish people who use it?

What led me to this pseudo-scientific exercise was a story in today's news about a young man from Connecticut, William Barboza, who, upset that he received a speeding ticket on an upstate highway near Liberty, New York, and seeking to vent his annoyance, returned the ticket to the town court's clerk -- with proper payment of the fine -- but with a handwritten five-word vulgarity, which included the word "****," as well as the word "tyranny" scribbled over the town name of Liberty.

Apparently, when she opened the envelope and saw what Mr. Barboza had written, the court clerk became alarmed and told the town judge, who presumably became equally alarmed. He contacted Mr. Barboza, directing him to appear in court on the ticket. When Mr. Barboza drove all the way from Connecticut to appear in court, oblivious of the reason for his required appearance, the judge summarily had him arrested, handcuffed, and jailed on a charge of aggravated harassment, which, according to New York's Penal Law § 240.30, is violated when a person, "with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm another person, communicates by mail in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm."

As reported in the story, the Town of Liberty is notorious for locking people up who use in public any crude, vulgar, offensive, and profane language, so Mr. Barboza's case does not seem that exceptional, at least for Liberty. What is unusual is that he sought to vindicate his own liberty. He sued the town, the judge, the police officers, and the prosecutors for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, even speech that is dirty and offensive. And last week, Federal District Judge Cathy Seibel agreed, refusing to dismiss the case, which the town officials sought, and ordered the case to be tried by a jury.

To many observers, offensive speech of the sort used by Mr. Barboza should not receive any constitutional protection. Needless to say, telling a police officer to "**** off" is not the wisest thing to say, and many persons have been arrested for disorderly conduct for saying it to police. Indeed, I make sure to advise my students in Constitutional Law never to say it, no matter what the provocation. But still, as we learn from the constitutional free speech cases, offensive language of the sort used by Mr. Barboza, and by thousands of other persons similarly eager to vent their displeasure at police or others, is that such language is constitutionally protected. In the landmark 1971 case, Cohen v. California, the defendant expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by inscribing on the back of his jacket, for a large public audience to see, the words "**** the Draft." He was convicted for offensive conduct that disturbed the peace, but the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Harlan's opinion may be the Court's most eloquent homage to the First Amendment protection of speech. Consider these famous lines: "That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is not a sign of weakness but of strength;" [it is not the government's place] "to punish an unseemly expletive in order to maintain what it regards as a suitable level of discourse;" [the government may not] "cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us;" "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

As a coda to Mr. Barboza's lawsuit, the New York Court of Appeals last year struck down the aggravated harassment law, finding that the operative terms "annoy" and alarm" are too vague and overbroad to pass constitutional scrutiny. And while much "verbal cacophony" appears increasingly to gorge public and cyber places, the value of unfettered speech, even dirty speech, still outweighs the danger of government silencing speech it deems offensive, even in, of all places, Liberty.

I got pulled over on the way in to the local park meeting a friend to play basketball. The officer is notorious in my area for this kind of thing. I'm most likely the first person to ever record him. What isn't in the video is him approaching my passenger window and also not telling me why I got pulled over. He eventually told me it was because of my window tint but did not even test for it. He found nothing in my car after telling me he "smelled enough marijuana in the car to consider it probable cause." He called in back up and the other officer had the nerve to ask me "so what's you're problem with the police?" I wouldn't mind having some legal feedback, if I can Id like to take legal actions against this rogue, unruly officer.

A federal lawsuit can ánowá move forward against two little rock police officers -- who took part in an officer-involving shooting -- nearly five years ago.

that ruling -- coming from the 8th circuit court of appeals today.

67-year-old eugene ellison was shot and killed inside his apartment on december 9th 2010.

officer donna lesher and detective tabitha mccrillis were working off-duty security at the "big country chateau" -- when they noticed his open door. a confrontation ensued, ending with lesher shooting and killing ellison.

his sons filed a federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations. prosecutors ruled the shooting justified and the police department did not discipline either officer.

according to the court's decision today - lesher can face trial on a count of excessive use of lethal force. and both officers can face trial on unlawful entry under the fourth amendment for their entering ellison's apartment without a warrant.

the court's decision...came 7 months after an appeal from the city, because federal judge brian miller had denied their request for summary judgment.

the lower court ruled it was clearly established officers could not entera home without a warrant or consent...

while exceptions exist..a resident being mouthy...as one officer described ellison...was not an exception.

on the question of use of force, the court ruled mccrillis did qualify for immunity because she did not shoot and her non-lethal use of force caused minor injuries.

conflicting testimony by officers and questions of whether ellison was actually swinging a cane , led the court to rule lesher could face trial on the issue of lethal force.

"i think this case will resonate very strongly with jurors it begs the question where are you safe. where can you retreat and relax and be yourself without fear of intrustion from the state or over-zelous, poorly trained officers

Cops were on patrol in an apartment building and noticed an open door so they stopped to see if anyone "needed immediate aid." They could see an elderly man inside who explained he didn't need their help in a way that offended the cops. Officer McCrillis decided he was being mouthy and stepped inside to prevent the resident from shutting the door.

The old man approached the cops telling them to get out. They pushed him. He pushed back and a struggle ensued where "McCrillis and [officer] Lesher repeatedly struck Ellison and knocked off his glasses," while he repeatedly told them to get out and leave him alone.

After the beating was over and backup had arrived, they ordered him to lie down and he refused. That's when officer McCrillis told her partner the old man was going for his cane and shot him twice without warning.

Brendan Cronin, an officer for the New York Police Department, is claiming that he was in an alcohol-induced blackout when he walked up to a car in Pelham, New York and fired 13 shots into it. He hit Joe Felice, an innocent stranger, six times. This was in April of 2014. Seventeen months later, Officer Cronin remains on paid leave. Paid!

The victim and his family are now worried that the officer, who is expected to plead guilty on September 22, will somehow find a way to get off without any jail time—as NYPD officers normally do when they kill folk in New York. That coupled with obvious Daddy-Issues is just one big cluster ****.

...

He claims that after a long day of mandatory gun training, his superiors and partners all went and got drunk together. Let's not even bother unpacking the seven layers of wrong in that defense, but it's a mess.

Only in America could an officer walk up to car, unload his weapon, walk away, have the whole thing on film, and receive a paid 17-month vacation.

7. Policeman

The power of life and death on your hip, a badge of authority on your chest, a uniform of distinction, and a really loud siren! Everyone’s familiar with the stereotype of a bad cop — those officers who readily abuse their power, resent the people they are meant to protect, and use cold-hearted superiority to justify their viciousness. It's an unfortunate reality that some of the biggest criminals lurk among those who've sworn to uphold the law.

It’s becoming more and more common to see police officers being arrested for their criminal actions. However, one sheriff’s office seems to employ the ‘creme of the crop’ when it comes to inept, incompetent, and unqualified officers – the Bexar Sheriff’s Office.

Despite Sheriff Susan Pamerleau’s contention that she runs her office with ‘professionalism and excellence’, 12 of her deputies have been arrested since January of this year.

Instead of taking a tougher stance against her criminal cops, she simply brushed off the crimes of her deputies, saying the crimes committed by her deputies “are all crimes that plague the community” – You know, ‘everyday’ crimes that ‘normal people commit.

Here are the deputies that have been arrested this year, since January:

Detention Deputy David Ramos — arrested May 31 — Criminal Mischief misdemeanor
Detention Deputy Adrian Ambriz — arrested Aug. 4 — Tampering with Evidence
Detention Deputy Juan Medrano — arrested Aug. 6 — DWI
Detention Deputy Mark Hernandez — arrested Aug. 17 — DWI
Detention Deputy Billy Torres — arrested Jan. 9 — Burglary of a Building
Detention Deputy Erich Arredondo — arrested March 6 — Possession of marijuana
Detention Deputy Robert Serros — arrested May 23 — Assault with Bodily Injury-Family
Detention Deputy Mario Rios — arrested June 7 — DWI
Detention Deputy Joseph Barbier — arrested June 22 — Assault with Bodily Injury-Family
Detention Deputy Ronald Bailey — arrested June 25 — Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon indictment
Detention Deputy Termaine Elliott — arrested July 31 — Bribery, and Possession of a Controlled Substance in a Correctional Facility
Detention Deputy Omar Echeverria — arrested Sept. 10 — DWI

Sheriff Pamerleau may need to re-read the oath that is taken when deputies are ‘sworn in’, specifically the part where it says “and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this State“.

Cops in the Texas city shot motorcyclists, arrested all the witnesses, and have since prohibited them from speaking out under penalty of contempt.

...But police bullets did hit some of the bikers, the Associated Press reports after reviewing 8,800 pages of evidence apparently leaked to the news organization. “The gunfire included rounds fired by police that hit bikers, though it isn't clear whether those rifle shots caused any of the fatalities,” Emily Schmall reports. “Investigators have offered scant details about what sparked the fight or how the gunfire played out, and no one has been charged.” 18 bikers were wounded but survived the melee.

Waco Is Suppressing Evidence That Could Clear Innocent Bikers

Lawyers in the case have seen “dashboard video of people fleeing the scene while shots ring out, audio of police threatening to shoot people if they rise from the ground and photos of bodies lying in pools of blood in the restaurant parking lot,” AP adds. But neither police nor defense attorneys are talking about the evidence due to a broad gag order that a coalition of media organizations is challenging as unconstitutional. It was imposed by a judge who is a former law partner of the local district attorney.

The foreman of the grand jury that will decide who to indict is a Waco detective.

...

In addition to the most pressing question––how many of the bikers were killed by government-issued lead––it would be useful to know what role, if any, local authorities or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a bureaucracy with a stunning recent history of misconduct, played in provoking the fight. It would also be salubrious to hear the stories of the bikers themselves. At present, scores of people who did nothing wrong, but live under threat of prosecution for murder, are unable to share their experiences with the greater public.

The authorities have gagged them at their moment of greatest need.

If it turns out that some of the bikers in Waco died from police bullets, authorities will have shot people dead, arrested all the witnesses, and prohibited them from speaking out under penalty of contempt. It’s long past time for state overseers to step in.

...They found Dominic Fuller, an ex-con and a known gang member, arguing with his girlfriend in a stolen car. When they tried to question him, investigators say he took off running and tried to break into several homes to hide.

A woman told deputies that Fuller said he had a gun. He eventually holed up at Hope Equine Rescue a few blocks from where he started.

The founder, who was on a plane on her way to a conference, found out about the chaos when her phone blew up.

"I was in panic mode," Dani Horton, founder of Hope Equine Rescue, told FOX 13 in a phone interview. "That's something you don't expect to happen, ever."

SWAT members and other officers surrounded the house. One deputy thought he saw Fuller holding a gun when he came to the door. The object was black with silver trim.

The deputy fired off five rounds, killing Fuller.

"He made a split-second decision based on a choice, a bad choice the suspect made," said Polk Sheriff Grady Judd. "We don't choose to shoot people. People choose for us to shoot them."

The deputy who shot Fuller has been put on paid leave unit several different investigations are complete.