Posted on 05/12/2008 11:58:26 AM PDT by neverdem
After listening carefully to the two policemen, the judge had a problem: He did not believe them.
The officers, who had stopped a man in the Bronx and found a .22-caliber pistol in his fanny pack, testified that they had several reasons to search him: He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket.
But the judge, John E. Sprizzo of United States District Court in Manhattan, concluded that the police had simply reached into the pack without cause, found the gun, then “tailored” testimony to justify the illegal search. “You can’t have open season on searches,” said Judge Sprizzo, who refused to allow the gun as evidence, prompting prosecutors to drop the case last May.
Yet for all his disapproval of what the police had done, the judge said he hated to make negative rulings about officers’ credibility. “I don’t like to jeopardize their career and all the rest of it,” he said.
He need not have worried. The Police Department never learned of his criticism, and the officers — like many others whose word has been called into question — faced no disciplinary action or inquiry.
Over the last six years, the police and prosecutors have cooperated in a broad effort that allows convicted felons found with a firearm to be tried in federal court, where sentences are much harsher than in state court. Officials say the initiative has taken hundreds of armed criminals off the street, mostly in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and turned some into informers who have helped solve more serious crimes.
But a closer look at those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers’ testimony to be...
--snip--
“In each case,” he added, “the suspect in fact had a gun.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Who cares about the Second or Fourth Amendment?
Todd Heisler/The New York Times
A charge against Anthony McCrae was dismissed because a judge disbelieved an officer.
When Judges Said No
A judge shined a flashlight through the window of an S.U.V., above, in an evidence photo, to test police testimony.
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
The war on guns: Joel Miller explains how drug cops are killing 2nd Amendment
If the arrestees are previously-convicted felons in possession of firearms then the Fourth Amendment may be more important than the Second here.
That’s a win
If Sprizzo says so, I would trust him. He knows his stuff.
I suppose that the cops are just very, very, lucky and that these poor guys - who just happen to be felons - had simply been UNlucky enough to be ... victims of law enforcement.
Yeah, thats the ticket. Really your honor.
It’s not about the guns, it’s about the crimes people commit with them and the expectation by certain segments of society that the police are supposed to do something about it. The guns are a means to an end when it comes to criminals although one has to admit that making it hard on scumbags to commit crime is likely going to have positive outcomes on society.
Typically, the cameras used by police cruisers only record when the blue lights are on. So, if you are ever questioned by an officer with a patrol car, make sure he turns the lights on or the only record of what happened will be his word.
Gee, I wonder where they picked up that little tactic from?
Forget justice and the Constitution, a judge has to have his or her priorities.
Most of the time nothing good comes from a convicted felon possessing a gun. Then again, more proof that gun control laws don’t work since criminals don’t care about the law.
So do we take it that you SUPPORT cops conducting illegal searches and then lying in court? Because that’s the message you seem to be propagating here.
That’s your knee jerk reaction.
Try not to knock yourself out.
If it was qualified as a violent felony, I could buy it. Any felony? IMHO, any felony conviction disability to own a firearm should be an unconstitutional violation of the right to self defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Like the culture defining deviancy down, the statists have been defining what what qualifies as a felony down.
“So, if you are ever questioned by an officer with a patrol car, make sure he turns the lights on or the only record of what happened will be his word.”
Yeah, that’ll work.
CITIZEN: “Officer, could you turn your camera on?”
PIG: “Are you getting smart? Do you want to go to jail?”
I’m saying that the search was not illegal.
This judge sometimes -not often - does not concur.
Or do you simply believe it because it is printed - in - the - MSM?
>CITIZEN: “Officer, could you turn your camera on?”
PIG: “Are you getting smart? Do you want to go to jail?”
Excuse us, pig?
I’m asking for clarification. But your response says it all, I guess. So much for “innocent until PROVEN guilty,” huh?
PIG???? I remember that being the word of choice for police officers when I was a senseless hippie.
Guess some people never grow up.
And found through an unconstitutional search. Case dismissed. Get mad at the officers whose illegal searches let gun-toting felons back on the street.
“Guess some people never grow up.”
Guess some people (”cops” if you prefer) never stop murdering innocent civilians, dedicating their lives to taking my guns, and thinking and acting like they’re better than you, me, and everybody else. Bottom line — if you want my guns I do not care what people say about you or do to you.
Where does it state in the Constitution that ex-felons can be stripped of their rights? At one time in this country ALL of a person’s rights were reinstated when he/she had served their sentence.
I’m of the opinion that if someone cannot be trusted with full citizenship after they have served their time, they shouldn’t be released into the population with the rest of us.
"Don't taze me, Bro..."
..ZZAAPP..
Most police are doing a job that we are paying them to do; risking their lives every day, and they should be thanked, not vilified.
Those that commit illegal acts should be tried and convicted, but that doesn’t excuse your presumption that all cops are lawless creeps.
Bingo!
“MOST police are doing a job that we are paying them to do; risking their lives every day...”
I’ve never done a scientific study on how many cops are good or bad. I only know that an incredibly large amount of my run ins with the cops are amazingly negative. Lying in traffic court for no reason, getting wise in traffic stops, threatening to arrest me when a twice-convicted violent felon broke into my car, and I armed myself when I saw him doing it (Suppose you chased after him, fell, and the gun went off and killed somebody, the dumb whore-slut asked me) and taking TELEPHONE reports on the other THREE occasions when my car was broken into in Alex, Va. And, of course, wanting to disarm you, me, and everybody else. I have NO use for them.
The judges’ rulings emerge from what are called suppression hearings, in which defendants, before trial, can argue that evidence was seized illegally. The Fourth Amendment sets limits on the conditions that permit a search; if they are not met, judges must exclude the evidence, even if that means allowing a guilty person to go free.
The exclusionary rule. We have it for a good reason.
But one former federal judge, John S. Martin Jr., said the rulings are meant to deter serious abuses by the police. “The reason you suppress,” he said, “is to stop cops from going up to people and searching them when they don’t have reason.”
That's true. That's why we have the 4th Amendment. It's to deter police misconduct.
He had learned it from a newspaper article that described certain clues to watch for: a hand brushing a pocket, a lopsided gait, a jacket or sweater that seems mismatched or out of season.
What is the Standard Operating Procedure from the police? That's a question here not answered. Terry stops are (unfortunately) allowed. If the police have "reasonable suspicion" (which is in between a cop hunch and probable cause), they can perform what is known as a stop and frisk. Basicaly, a pat down for weapons and dangerous objects.
Moreover, Judge Gleeson said he did not believe that Officer Daughtry could even have seen the gesture he found so suspicious: Mr. McCrae’s hand was in front of him and the officer was about 30 feet behind.
If that is true, good call by the judge. That makes it a cop hunch and not reasonable suspicion.
My goodness!!! What have you been doing to attract all this negative energy?
Experienced people rely on their hunches; and it can save their lives.
Living in Alex, VA, with LOTS of crooks, and LOTS of cops who do nothing but traffic stops and telephone reports on serious crime. Moved to Loudoun, VA 5.5 years ago. Traffic stops in 5.5 years — 0, Break ins in 5.5 years — 0, Run ins with cops in 5.5 years — 0.
Sounds like the cops are doing a pretty good job in Loudoun, VA, wouldn’t you say?
As a reasonable, open-minded, and good-hearted man, I must admit that I agree. One day, I was in 7-11 and me, another guy, and a Loudoun Deputy were passing around a sub-sonic 9mm round and chatting up guns and bullets quite heartily. I can only imagine what would have happened had that been Alex., VA.
Some 30 to 50 people had there rights violated to catch this one. It is not “every case.”
Care to change your argument? Or will you allow the police to search your car, backpack, briefcase, or your wife's purse if the cops think there is a 1 in 40 chance that you may be breaking a law?
“Care to change your argument? Or will you allow the police to search your car, backpack, briefcase, or your wife’s purse if the cops think there is a 1 in 40 chance that you may be breaking a law?”
An illegal, unlawful “law” at that.
This reminds me of the infamous Tulia, Texas undercover cop Thomas Coleman who decided to ethnically cleanse his entire town of black people by falsely accusing them of dealing drugs.
Otherwise, around the country, police testimony is problematic for two reasons.
First of all, going way back, policemen have been required to testify in a particular way, using particular words and phrases, to avoid having their testimony ruined by lawyers who play semantic games.
This is not unique to the US. It was first remarked on in England, where for example a policeman found the body of a man on a bridge whose head had been cut off. He had to testify that the man “had been interfered with”, because had he said he was dead, the lawyer would have demanded to know if he had a medical degree with which he could make that assertion.
However, this standardized testimony plays into the hands of police officers who falsely testify using catch phrases that didn’t apply during the arrest.
One recent example was noted that an officer who had many DUI arrests used exactly the same language for most of them to show that they “looked intoxicated”. This led to many being arrested even though they had 0.0 on their Breathalyzer test.
“At least six of 27 motorists arrested by Cox for DUI that month passed drug testing and registered blood alcohol levels below the legal limit. Nonetheless, twenty-two of the arrest reports contained passages essentially identical to those in Noakes’ report describing “bloodshot and glassy” eyes and other alleged indicators of intoxication.
California defense attorney Lawrence Taylor calls says this “Xeroxing” of arrest reports is common.
“The (prewritten) report tells the officer what he should have seen — not what he actually saw,” Taylor wrote. “And as any honest cop will tell you, drunk driving cases rarely follow such a neat, pre-described script. But it is convenient. And avoids messy complications — like the actual facts.”
Cop hunches are good to keep an eye out for reasonable suspicious activities. They don't however justify a Terry stop.
“Most police are doing a job that we are paying them to do; risking their lives every day, and they should be thanked, not vilified.
Those that commit illegal acts should be tried and convicted, but that doesn’t excuse your presumption that all cops are lawless creeps.”
I was talking with a special prosecutor for the DA’s office of a major city and he told me that out of their police force of about 1400, 1200 fit the description of a bad cop (taking bribes, stealing, lying under oath, beating suspects, planting evidence, etc, etc). When over 85% of your police force breaks the law, you know you have a serious problem.
When I was a senseless teenager I never called police pigs.
I was in the tank as the result of a bum DUI(the DA threw it out so it had to be a rotten deal and it was reduced to driving with no lights on)when I was 18.
There was an old grandmotherly type gal who was just nasty drunk in the tank screaming and cussing all night about “Go&da&ned pigs don’t have anything better to do!” It was thoroughly disgusting. She was way past old enough to know better.
Meanwhile, I was sitting there reading lawbooks for hours trying to find an escape hatch and kept my mouth shut. (There were no women’s facilities at the time, so we were housed in the attorney’s consultation area which had shelves full of lawbooks.) The guards were walking by and checking on us every few minutes. After they saw me reading the books, one of them said several times, “Look at that! She doesn’t belong here!” I don’t know if it was input on his part or a sensible DA that saved my bacon.
I still can’t believe that woman after almost thirty years!
I felt sorry for her grandkids, if she had any.
Classic! "Now supposed you were smart enough to not make idiotic hypotheticals."
I cannot imagine the Founders would have passed the Fourth if they thought it would result in a government that would have the power to stop and search the saddle bags and personal effects of anyone they pleased. This is not in the powers enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is in the powers enumerated in Terry v Ohio.
What I wanted to say to the filthy whore was, “I suppose the hundreds of intense “anti-slip and fall” training you’ve had would make it impossible for you to fall. Here I was, less than a year separated from 4 years in the USMC infantry, including a tour of Beirut in 83, and I’m taking crap from this little slut about safe firearms handling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And some wonder why I don’t like cops.
Neither do some pigs...
Even in the wake of Terry, the cops still need to articulate a specific pattern of behavior that would reasonably lead them to believe that a crime was afoot.
Terry and his accomplice were observed for several minutes as they cased a store they were preparing to rob. Even a little old lady, watching them, would have known they were planning a crime.
"Looking nervous" and "sweating" doesn't rise to the level to justify a Terry stop-and-frisk - you'd think that they'd make up something better than the story that got smacked down by this judge, but undoubtedly they've gotten away with it for years so didn't bother to make up anything better.
And, speaking of abuse of authority, I just sent this to the editor of our local “news” paper:
Saturday, the day before Mothers’ Day, I witnessed a sight that leaves me yet simmering. I had heard of this happening, but seeing it with my own two eyes got my blood boiling and raised my blood pressure to dangerous heights. I’m talking about the Highway 37 underpass over by Six Flags along Fairgrounds Drive, where there is not a “No Parking” sign to be observed on the west side of the street (there are plenty on the EAST side, though) and yet our very own curvaceous and sparkling meter maid was writing parking tickets for otherwise lawfully parked vehicles.
Has Vallejo REALLY sunk to such despicable levels as to have our overpaid Police Department out doing fund raising in such a vile manner? It’s bad enough that our cops are out stealing cars (or, as they call it, “confiscating”) and doing all manner of other things that, were they done PRIVATELY, would merit serious prison time. In other words, our cops are doing the very things we hired them to PREVENT. And now they are performing what, in my view, is another egregious abuse of authority. WHY? Can someone from the PD please inform me as to where this reprehensible behavior is permitted? Under what statute can someone write a parking ticket when the place one is parked is NOT a no parking zone? And please be specific as to your cite. IF you have one.
If there IS none (as I suspect to be the case), I would LOVE to see the victims of this abuse file a class action suit against the perpetrators, from the meter maid to the City Council. I would also like to see criminal charges filed against the same rat-pack.
(No, I am NOT one who got a ticket. If I were, I would most assuredly have standing to file a suit and/or a criminal complaint myself... AND I WOULD.)
OR the cops are not quite dumb enough to bring illegal searches where no gun was found to the attention of the courts.
If a cop makes an unwarranted search of a felon because his gut tells him the guy has a gun on him, fine. Do it but don’t charge the guy and come to Court where you are going to commit perjury. Grab the felons gun and turn it in as found property. If you want to charge the dude for carrying a weapon, do the search legally.
I will not tolerate a crime committed behind a badge. If you want to use the authority of the badge, do it properly.
The GCA of 68 and other US Laws make it a felon for a convicted felon to possess arms or ammunition. Why waste state time and effort(some states do not consider it a bad thing for a convicted felon to have a roscoe) on a known bad guy when Uncle Sam is waiting to kick him down hard?
God Bless
Why not any felony? If a person is a big-time crook, thief or murderer, you see a social value difference?
I do not.
However, I may be persuaded to the idea of a felon who has served thier full time, paid thier debt to society (however that works?) AND proven themselves reformed (again, how do you do that?), be restored in all aspect of rights....
God Bless
Molon Labe
GCA ‘68, NFA ‘34 and every other abomination like them need to be repealed YESTERDAY and finally declared what they are: a power grab by FedGov designed originally to keep the Prohibition I bureaucraps employed. Such “laws” are anathema to a free society, always and forever. And with the penchant for government to keep CREATING new classes of felons, it would behoove you to keep in mind that YOU are nothing more or less than a felon who hasn’t been prosecuted yet. There are, in fact, THAT MANY criminal laws already on the books and more a’ coming daily, at all levels. So are you REALLY sure you wanna go down the path your post suggests?
The police only prosecuted those cases in which they found a gun. There are propably hundreds of cases where they searched people without cause and found nothing, or if they found something other than a gun, it wasn't brought before this judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.