What makes police officers and the government powerless? When the American people know and use their rights!Police officers don't like to hear these words:
"Am I free to go?" + "I don't consent to a search." + I'm going to remain silent."Etc.You have rights during a traffic stop or any police encounter. Learn what your rights are and use them before you loose them!+ If YouCall 911 You May Die ! ? ?
You Have NO Right to Police Protection! + Dial 911 and You Could Die! + Well Hello
You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. The police don’t even have to come when you call. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and DIE! Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue.
Incredible as it may seem the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations. Police do very little to prevent violent crime. They investigate crime after the fact.
To be fair to our men in blue, most officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that they are under no legal obligation to do so.
You have no recourse if the police fail to respond or protect you from injury or death.
Case Histories + Warren v. District of Columbia 1981 - Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.
When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
WASHINGTON - June, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The police didn't respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnaping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.
Estate of Sinthasomphone vs City of Milwaukee (1992) Milwaukee police received a 911 call informing them that a naked and badly beaten young boy (who turned out to be a 14-year-old Laotian named Konerak Sinthasomphone) was at a specific address and needed help. The police responded to the call, as did the fire department and paramedics. When the police arrived, Jeffrey Dahmer, currently on probation for sexual abuse of a male child, was trying to reassert control over the boy while two private citizens were trying to prevent him from doing so. The police ordered the two citizens and the fire department to leave, took control of boy and delivered the drugged and beaten boy back to Dahmer's apartment. Dahmer, it turned out, was a serial killer. Sinthasomphone became one of his seventeen victims, with his body dismembered and stuffed into his refrigerator. Sinthasomphone's family and estate sued, alleging Konerak's constitutional rights were violated by Milwaukee police. The federal district court ruled that the case could proceed to trial, concluding that the alleged facts suggest that it was the government's action in preventing rescue, not just inaction, that was the cause of his injuries and that Konerak's brief period of police custody might have created the "special relationship."
1982 -A husband and wife who were assaulted in a Laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn.
The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.
Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
1975 - Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features.
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]
1991 - In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D.,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990) Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.
A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''
In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders.
1965 - In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne NeCasek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer's alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
1969 - An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the 'Watts' Riots' of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
04/08/2006 - Michigan - A 5-year-old boy called 911 to report that his mother had collapsed in their apartment, but an operator told him he should not be playing on the phone, and she died before help arrived.
The family of Sherrill Turner, 46, does not know whether a swifter response could have saved her life, but relatives want to know why the operator apparently treated the call as if it were a prank.
Police said the 911 response was under investigation.
Turner's son, Robert, placed two calls to 911 after his mother collapsed Feb. 20 on the kitchen floor. During one of the calls, an operator said: "You shouldn't be playing on the phone."
In a tape of the call, parts of which were broadcast by Detroit-area television stations, the operator said: "Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."
In an audio of the tape played on TV, some of what the boy says is unintelligible.
Delaina Patterson, the eldest of Turner's 10 children, said police did not arrive until three hours later. She said only Robert and his mother were home at the time.
Detroit police spokesman James Tate said it was at least an hour before authorities arrived, but he said he did not have details. By that time, the boy's mother had died, he said.
"The operator may have believed he was playing on the phone," Tate said.
The 911 operator remains on the job amid the investigation, Tate said.
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
avidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
You have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!
Police Officer Code of Ethics
Every criminal justice profession and association has "codes" of ethics, "canons" of professional responsibility, "statements" of values, "principles" of conduct, "standards" of practice, and "oaths" of office, along with "pledges", "vows", "maxims", "credos", "prayers", "tenets", and "declarations". Some are directed to God; others to superiors or the profession; and still others to society as a whole. They all make promises that people commit to keeping as a standard of performance.
A code of ethics if it is to be used for occupational purposes, must set a standard above ordinary morality. Otherwise there's no need for a code of ethics at all. This is especially relevant to police work where it's going to take more than just a commitment to being an ordinary, decent human being.
A VISION OF ETHICAL POLICING
The ethically ideal police system would be one with integrity and nothing puzzling about it (i.e., there would be no corruption nor misconduct). There would be no us-against-them and no disrespect for the limits of the law or how it's enforced. Everything done in private would be just as if it was done in public. Mistakes would be treated as learning opportunities but there would be less of them because of widespread adherence to the values of probity, propriety, restraint, reasonableness, and caution. Recruitment, selection, and training mechanisms would be flawless, with promotion on the basis of merit, no one being without ample supervision and the organization giving its personnel whatever resources they need to perform their work better. There would be "open door" policies to the public, academics and the media. Nothing the police do or how they do it would come as a surprise to anyone.
The commitment to a code of ethics is unconditional. You don't lower your ideals (or revise your mission statement) just because circumstances in the environment have changed. The true test of character is keeping your faith in the face of adversity.
THE POLICE CODE OF ETHICS
There are few professions that demand so much moral fiber as policing. Police stand in "harm's way" not so much against enemies with bullets but against enemies skilled in every form of trickery, deceit, feigned ignorance, and deception. That's why the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, stands as a spirited reminder to the higher order of this calling:
* As a Law Enforcement Officer my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.
* I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare or others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department.
* Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
* I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.
* I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement.
Police Complaints - How to File a Complaint Against a Police Officer Never ... ever... walk into a police station and try to file a complaint against a police officer. Civilian testers have shown that you may be harassed or falsely arrested by the police. Police complaints are allegations of misconduct and you as an American citizen have the right to file a police complaint. When someone files a complaint against a police officer an incident report is placed in the police officer's record, so as to hopefully keep the officer from continuing to abuse his or her authority. It also makes the officers superiors aware that there might be a problem with that individual police officer that needs to be addressed. Filing a police complaint and reporting police misconduct is a step towards ending this abuse of power by police.
Examples of police misconduct are: + Rudeness + Excessive force Soliciting or accepting bribes + Drinking on duty + Harassment Making a false report (good for alleging in the case of traffic tickets) Use of narcotics (on or off duty) + Discrimination Altering information on an official document + Sexual harassment Careless driving (driving rapidly and/or aggressively to a minor call Racial or ethnic intimidation + Malicious threats or assault
As soon as possible write down everything that happened. Don't worry about sending off your complaint right away. Wait a few days and go back over your written complaint and see what you might have forgotten the first time you wrote it. There's no need for "emotions" to be involved when you write your complaint and the most important thing is to be truthful! If the police catch you in a lie, your complaint won't be credible, nor will any other complaints you send in the future. You could even be charged for making a false report against a police officer and in some states be sued by the police officer.
The more information in your written complaint the better. Your compliant should include:
Who is the officer you're filing a complaint against? Name or badge number?
What the officer said or did? Was he rude, abusive or used excessive force?
When did it happen? Date and time.
Where did it occur? Location?
How or why did the incident occur?
Do you have corroborating witnesses whose story doesn't conflict with yours? If you have witnesses you should ask each of them to write a separate account of the incident and sign it.
Do you have any type of evidence, like pictures or a video recording? If you do don't send the "original" to the police, send only a copy.
To file a complaint against a police officer "one of a less serious nature," you need to mail a written complaint sent "certified mail with return receipt." Certified mail gives you some type of proof that you actually filed a complaint against a police officer. If you don't send the complaint certified mail the letter sometimes gets lost or misplaced by someone at the police department.
The complaint will be investigated and you should receive a letter back from the police agency on the status of your complaint. Most police complaints will be in the favor of the police officer, but the good thing is the complaint will stay on the police officers record.
The police may try and contact you by phone or mail to do a "follow up" about your complaint. Don't answer any questions and never go down to the police station for an interview. Tell them everything they need to know is in the letter you sent and then say good bye. Stick to what you said in your complaint letter and say nothing else!
The response you will get from the police department will be one of the following:
SUSTAINED – The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove some or all of the allegations made in the complaint and disciplinary action could result against the officer.(s)
NOT SUSTAINED – The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation(s) made.
EXONERATED – The investigation reveals that the acts did occur, but the actions taken were justified, lawful and proper.
UNFOUNDED – The investigation indicated that the alleged act(s) did not occur.
EXONERATED – The investigation reveals that the acts did occur, but the actions taken were justified, lawful and proper.
There is a time limit on how long you have to file a complaint against a police officer. For minor police misconduct you may have only 30-45 days and up to 6 months for more serious allegations.
A police complaint will not get a victim compensated for police abuse and police complaints are not lawsuits. If you file a complaint against a police officer and the police clear themselves as they often do, the only recourse you may have is a civil lawsuit. In a civil lawsuit you may receive compensation if you and your attorney can prove damages or civil rights violations. Contact a competent civil rights attorney if you need more information about filing a lawsuit for civil rights violations.
If you're interested in knowing what complaints have been filed against police officers in your community, you may request a copy of that information be sent to you from that police agency.
Request the "Internal Affairs Log." Send your request to the City Attorney at City Hall for information on the "city police" or to the County Attorney at the Court House for information on the "Sheriffs Department." Tell them what year or years you're requesting. Send your request certified mail with return receipt.
While you're at it also request a copy of the "use of force" for whatever year you're looking for. This will tell you who the cops roughed up, pulled their Taser or gun on.
DON'T ever walk into a police station and ask for this information! Police officers either start acting real stupid on the subject or they get mad and start threatening you.
Never file a complaint directly with a police agency specially if the complaint is of a serious nature, see an attorney! If you do plan on hiring an attorney, get one who doesn't work in your area. Don't get a lawyer from your town, county or from the surrounding counties. Local lawyers work with same judges, prosecutors and police officers on a daily basis and may not want to win your case as bad as you do.
You may also contact your State Attorney General Office. For serious incidents call the ACLU hot line 1-877-634-5454 or contact the Department of Justice click here for the (DOJ) site.
POLICE DEVIANCE & ETHICS
Police work by its very nature involves the slippery slope (the potential for gradual deterioration of social-moral inhibitions and perceived sense of permissibility for deviant conduct). In fact, the whole unspoken "dark" side of criminal justice work involves putting up with conditions that are at less than usual comfort levels; i.e., "slumming it".
Police are routinely involved in undercover work which involves taking on false identities and inducing crime. Police are allowed to make false promises to hostage takers and kidnappers. Police feed disinformation to the media. Police are trained to be deceptive at interviewing and interrogation. Police make all kinds of excuses to get out of nuisance calls. Police trade or sell their days off and desirable work assignments. Police angle themselves into cases requiring court appearances and manipulate the overtime system to earn an average of $5000 more a year. Police strain the truth to protect loved ones and crime victims. Police routinely invade privacy via surveillance and other technological means. Police fighting the drug problem may encounter more loose cash than the gross national product of some small countries. And as with sting operations, there's something that's just plain sick about a system that condones the police making a product, selling the product, and then arresting people for buying the product. Police deviance is a much broader term than corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group too. The following definitions may be helpful: Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics C-- forbidden acts involving misuse of office for gain Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or relatives (nepotism)
Although this lecture is about deviance, it might be useful to take a brief look at a couple of these other terms. Corruption is criminal conduct that can involve under using one's authority, overusing one's authority, or profiteering via one's authority. The key element is misuse of official authority; the gain can be personal or for the common good. Corruption is bad because it undermines integrity, the state of policing being whole or undivided. Corruption has been the target of numerous efforts at creating topologies. Here are three of the most popular topologies of corruption: Police misconduct is impropriety of office, not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole. The different types of misconduct are often classified as follows: Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use) Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of suspect) Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach)
THE MYTH OF THE ROTTEN APPLE
According to the Knapp Commission, which blew the whistle on the standard police explanation for corruption (he/she's a rotten apple in an otherwise clean barrel), "rotten apples" are either weak individuals who have slipped through the screening process or succumbed to the temptations inherent in police work or deviant individuals who continue their deviance in an environment that gives them ample opportunity. Police departments tend to use the rotten apple theory or some variation of the "rogue cop" story to minimize the public backlash against policing after every exposed act of corruption.
A functional explanation may be closer to the truth, and is indeed supported by almost every scholarly observer on the subject. A functional explanation is that corruption is inherent in society's attempt to enforce unenforceable laws. Another approach is the "occupational socialization" explanation, the polar opposite of rotten apple theory that is sometimes called "rotten barrel" theory. According to this view, the very structure of policing (exposure to unsavory characters, forgetting what you learned in the academy, clannishness, and overzealous, misguided approaches to crime control) provides plenty of opportunities to learn the entrenched patterns of deviant police conduct that have been passed down thru generations.
TYPES OF POLICE DEVIANCE
A gratuity is the receipt of free meals, services, or discounts. Non federal police usually do not regard these as forms of corruption ("not another lecture on the free cup of coffee or police discount"). These are considered fringe benefits of the job. Nevertheless, they violate the Code of Ethics because they involve financial reward or gain, and they are corruption because the officer has been placed in a compromising position where favors (a "fix") can be reasonably expected in the future. When there is an implied favor (a "wink and nod"), it's called "mooching". When the officer is quite blatant about demanding free services, it's called "chiseling".
Gratuities often lead to things like kickbacks (bribery) for referring business to towing companies, ambulances, or garages. Further up the scale comes pilfering, or stealing (any) company's supplies for personal use. At the extreme, opportunistic theft takes place, with police officers skimming items of value that won't be missed from crime scenes, property rooms, warehouses, or any place they have access to. Theft of items from stores while on patrol is sometimes called "shopping".
A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection money. The typical scenario involves gay bars, which are considered the most vulnerable. In some cities (like Boston for example), police are still charged with the power to inspect bars for compliance with liquor regulations. Officers are then in a position to threaten bar owners with violations if they do not make payoffs, and promise to intercept ("fix") any other violation reports processed through department channels. In other cities (like San Francisco, for example), officers would promise extra protection against gay-bashing in return for extra payments. In still other cities (like New Orleans, for example), moonlighting officers would make extra money from "details" in liquor establishments, and be paid extra for overlooking open sex or drug violations. In some cities, police officers have complete control over liquor licenses and even own nearby parking meters. To deal with the gay bar issue, many police departments have tried hiring openly gay recruits.
Shakedowns are also common with strip bars, prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction projects. In each case, the approach and modus operandi are somewhat variable, because each officer subjects the business operator and/or patrons to the shakedown differently.
This is usually a means to effect an act of corruption, leaving out certain pertinent pieces of information in order to "fix" a criminal prosecution. "Dropsy" evidence is typical, where the officer testifies untruthfully that he/she saw the offender drop some narcotics or contraband. Lies that Miranda warnings have been given, when they haven't, are also typical. Lying in court is called "testifying", and police can do it coolly; they're trained witnesses.
Other actors in the system, supervisors and even judges, are often aware of the perjury. They pretend to believe police officers who they know are lying. Everybody's happy with the system. The cop gets credit for a good bust; the supervisor's arrest statistics look good; the prosecutor racks up another win; the judge gets to give his little lecture without endangering his reelection prospects, the defense lawyer gets his fee in dirty money, and the public is thrilled that another criminal is off the street (Dershowitz 1996).
Most perjury is committed by decent cops who honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free unless they lie about something.
Police brutality has been defined as excessive force, name calling, sarcasm, ridicule, and disrespect (President's Commission 1967). Other commissions have simply used a vague definition as "any violation of due process". Kania and Mackey's (1977) widely-regarded definition is "excessive violence, to an extreme degree, which does not support a legitimate police function." When a citizen charges police brutality, they may be referring to a number of things, including:profane or abusive language commands to move or go home field stops and searches threats of implied violence prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a pistol the actual use of physical force
Only the last one of these (unreasonable and unnecessary actual use of physical force) can be considered police brutality. This is commonly expressed as "more than excessive force". Police perjury and police brutality go hand in hand, as officers who commit brutality will most likely lie on the stand to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit or departmental charges. The reasons why an officer might engage in this kind of conduct are many:a small percentage may have been attracted to police work for the opportunity to enjoy physically abusing and hurting somebody an officer may come to believe "it's a jungle out there" an officer may be provoked and pushed beyond their endurance
The most common reason is occupational socialization and peer support. One common belief is that it's necessary to come down hard on those who resist arrest because they may kill the next police officer who tries to arrest them (so you have to teach 'em a lesson). Another practice is the "screen test", police jargon for applying the brakes on a police vehicle to that the handcuffed prisoner in back will be thrown against the metal protective screen.
Criminal justice experts are divided over whether racial differences exist with respect to police use of force (Weisburd et. al. 2000). On the one hand, the Christopher Commission (1991) stated that white officers were somewhat more likely to use excessive force against African-Americans, and watchdog groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have stated a pattern exists, but on the other hand, respected researchers like Adams (1996) and Tonry (1995) as well as the U.S. government itself have never unveiled a pattern.
There are many reasons why a police officer would use obscene and profane language. Effective use of verbal communication is one of the skills expected in police work. Concepts such as "command voice" and "command presence" are routinely taught at police training academies. The FCC specifically condemns certain words on radio and television that are "patently offensive", but there's no such mechanism for determining what's offensive with interpersonal communication. The following topology exists:words having religious connotations (e.g., hell, goddamn) words indicating excretory functions (e.g., shit, piss) words connected with sexual functions (e.g., fuck, prick)
Generally, words with religious connotations are considered the least offensive and words connected with sexual functions are considered the most offensive. It's commonly the case, however, that use of such language by police officers is purposive and not a loss of control or catharsis.to gain the attention of citizens who may be less than cooperative to discredit somebody or something, like an alibi defense to establish a dominant-submissive relationship to identify with an in-group, the offender or police subculture to label or degrade an out-group
Of these, the last is of the most concern, since it may reflect the transition of prejudice to discrimination, especially if racial slurs or epithets are involved. On the other hand, profanity for innocuous purposes may very well be something that it is unrealistic to expect will go away in policing or many other contexts.
POLICE SEX ON DUTY OR DUTY-RELATED
Contacts with promiscuous females and minimal supervision are part of the job. Sooner or later, every police officer will be propositioned. There are a number of women who are attracted to the uniform or the aura of the occupation. Every police officer will be able to tell you stories about police "groupies". These are women who make the rounds by waving at officers, getting them to stop or pull over, and then set up meetings to have sex with them, or sometimes right then and there. A woman such as this typically has sex with whole departments and hundreds of police officers. Other situations involve: traffic stops -- to get a closer look at the female or information about her fox hunting -- stopping college girls to get the I'll do anything routine voyeurism -- window peeping or interrupting lovers lane couples victim re-contacts -- consoling victims who have psychological needs opposite sex strip searches -- touching and/or sex with jail inmates sexual shakedowns -- letting prostitutes go if they perform sex acts
On occasion, one hears about "rogue" officers who coerce women into having sex on duty, "second rapes" of crime victims, and school liaison officers involved with juvenile females, but such instances are rare because of the penalties involved. When police sex cases come to the public attention, the department reaction is usually to reemphasize the code of ethics. Such was the case in the 1985 Rathskellar incident in San Francisco, where at a police academy graduation party, one bashful recruit was handcuffed to a chair, and a prostitute was brought in to perform oral sex on him.
POLICE SLEEPING ON DUTY
On the night shift, the police car is sometimes referred to as the "traveling bedroom". In police argot, a "hole" or "coop" is where sleeping takes place, typically the back room of someplace the officer has a key to and can engage in safe "cooping". Police officers who attend college during the day or moonlight at other jobs in order to make a decent living are often involved in this kind of conduct. Numerous court appearances during the day can also be a factor, along with the toll of shift work.
Sleeping on duty, of course, is just an extreme example of goldbricking, the avoidance of work or performing only the amount minimally necessary to satisfy superiors. Goldbricking can take many forms: from ignoring or passing on calls for service to someone else; overlooking suspicious behavior; or engaging in personal business while on duty.
POLICE DRINKING & ABUSING DRUGS ON OR OFF DUTY
There are endless opportunities to drink or take drugs while on duty (e.g., victim interviews, shakedowns, contraband disposal), and the reasons for it are many: to get high, addiction, stress, burnout, or alienation from the job. However, even in cases of recreational usage (which doesn't exist, since officers are never off-duty or have any of their "own time"), the potential is there for corruption. The officer must obtain the drugs from some intermediary, involve others in transactions, and open the door to blackmail, shakedowns, ripoffs, and coverups. It sets a bad example for public relations. It will affect judgment, and lead to the greater likelihood of deadly force or traffic accidrinkingdents. Alcohol and drug use tends to become a systemic problem; others become involved, either supporting or condemning the user. Alcohol and drugs tend to be mixed by police officers because there's more sub cultural support for alcoholism; thus the abuser covers up the drug use with alcoholism.
More intriguing is when the police become sellers or dealers of drugs. One occasionally hears stories of officers selling drugs at rock concerts. The motivation here appears to be monetary gain and greed, although there have been some attempts to claim stress or undercover assignment as a defense. In cases were such officers have been disciplined, plea bargained, or arbitrated, the courts have not upheld a job stress/drug connection, although there is some precedent in rulings that job assignment may be a factor in alcoholism.
With the exception of a few places (like Hawaii), police officer associations (POAs) have opposed random drug testing. They especially oppose drug testing after a shooting incident because it taints the officer. They are not generally opposed to drug testing of applicants or probationary employees. They do, of course, support strict discipline of any employee who is involved in dealing drugs.
POLICE MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This normally involves jeopardizing an ongoing investigations by "leaking" information to friends, relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal suspects or members of their gang. The officer may be unaware that they are even engaging in this kind of conduct which may involve "pillow talk" in some instances. Failed raids, for example, are often due to a leak in the department.
In other cases, department resources, such as computer systems, may be used to produce criminal history reports for "friends" of the department such as private detectives, consulting firms, or area employers. Passwords can also slip out, granting access to computer network information. In rare cases, police resources are put to use in blackmailing political figures. In general, however, cracking down on secrecy violations has produced more problems than it has solved. Part of the reason for the current fragmented condition of American law enforcement rests upon a false sense of security derived from overdone needs for secrecy.
Links Independent Media Center - Great site on news! So good that the Government shut the site down for a few days to investigate them and steal records.
Leap -LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: Current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.
Fully Informed Jury Association- Their mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.
their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.
The Innocence Project - They work to exonerate the wrongfully convicted through postconviction DNA testing; and develop and implement reforms to prevent wrongful convictions. This Project only handles cases where postconviction DNA testing can yield conclusive proof of innocence
Who's a Rat.com - REAL LIFE - REAL PEOPLE largest online database of informants and agents. Locate a RAT and let's dispose of these RATS!
D.O.J. Publications -- On addressing Police Misconduct-This document outlines the laws enforced by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that address police misconduct and explains how you can file a complaint.
Citizens Court Watch + & Thank You For Taking The Time To Read This Websites
I Hope That This Websites Can Help You & Others With Your Court Cases / Laws.
You Can E-Mail US AT firstname.lastname@example.orgYou Can Also Write To Us at Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A. P.O. Box 960 Newman Lake, Wa. 99025 or P.O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Phone Messages Call Us at (Washington D.C. Offices) At # 202-670-LAWS (5297) Florida # 561-90-PRO-SE (7-7673) Spokane, Wa. # 509-701-5683 or 509-465-4528 Wisconsin # 920-39-JUDGE (5-8343) Texas # 512-887-8779 All Calls Are Welcome
You May Help Others By Making $$$ A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time. PLEASE REMEMBER DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS 911*
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !
Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities: This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site.
In No Event Shall Westlawbooks.com, or Any Other Web Address Etc. or Domain from Westlaw Books or its staff, its sponsors, its contributors or its ISP be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, or damages for lost profits, loss of money or revenue, or loss of use, arising out of or related to the westlawbooks.com or Any Other Web Address or Domain from Westlaw Books or my other internet Web Site or the information contained in it, whether such damages arise in contract, negligence, tort, under statute, in equity, at law or otherwise.
If you have a Complaint About Westlaw Books Dot Com or My Other Domain's ? Content of this Website, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 18010 Spokane, WA. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not Lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be Lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional.
The following is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other Info. & professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you ! Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !