Posted on 11/11/2017 8:28:17 AM PST by Leaning Right
However, also from the article:
Despite [defense attorney] Levine’s argument, the judge in the case said Thursday that he did not see things the same way on the video.
Lord!
We live in a world where demonic forces are on “both sides” of the law trying to drag us all down with them.
Evil Cops & Evil People.
Maybe it was found in the pocket, thrown down, after finding it, picked upm and put in the wallet and confiscated.
I don’t see much here IMO.
Not only did he testify to that, but the police report also reports that.
I fail to see why the Officer was Not immediately REMANDED in to custody for Felony Perjury? Judge needs to be FIRED.
Wallet or shirt, which was it?
News writers.... (sigh)
> Maybe it was found in the pocket, thrown down, after finding it, picked up and put in the wallet and confiscated. <
I thought about the same thing. It’s also quite possible that the suspect himself threw the drugs on the ground. But even then the cops are in error for putting the drugs in the wallet.
That’s evidence-tampering, and if that’s what happened it should not be tolerated.
Despite [defense attorney] Levine’s argument, the judge in the case said Thursday that he did not see things the same way on the video.
...
Why didn’t the NYPost expand on that and provide more details?
“the judge in the case said Thursday that he did not see things the same way on the video.“
Good thing it’s up to a jury.
L
> Wallet or shirt, which was it? <
Cops say shirt. Video shows wallet. And yes, it’s poor writing. I had to read it over a couple of times before I got the picture.
The article is useless without the video for us to judge for ourselves.
The only other info I can find:
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, a labor union for officers, disputed Levine’s allegations.
“A criminal defense attorney’s selective use of body worn camera footage does not tell the entire story,” it said. “We believe the truth will be uncovered upon the completion of the internal review and we believe the officers will be vindicated.”
Two things I find suspicious.
1: No audio. There is a reason for that.
2: One would have to assume that the police officer spends his day on the job with multiple bags of cocaine on his person, with a VERY high risk of being around drug dogs.
If you watch the hand movements, they imply that the officer picked up the bag off the ground. He then comes around and shows the other officer and the suspect the bag and says he is putting it in the wallet.
How did the 'bag' get on the ground. Same way the billfold was found on the ground. The officers had him on the ground arresting/handcuffing him and pulled everything out of his pockets as they searched him. In the video you can see multiple items on the ground. That is why the other officers stated the bag was ORIGINALLY in his shirt pocket.
Remember, this guy was in a high speed chase, had a gun in his trunk, and committed a hit and run. Why would it be 'necessary' to plant drugs on him ?
There is good quality video at the link. Perhaps your browser cannot play it?
hmm... I don’t think it necessarily proves planting the evidence but I think it does put into question the possession charge (The officer might’ve found it on the ground and we already can’t trust the officer’s testimony).
I’d throw that out and leave the hit and run charges.
I don’t think there’s enough here for perjury on the part of the officer either because you can’t prove planting the evidence from the video (the drugs might’ve been on the ground and the officer assumed they belonged to the perp).
More to the point - officers should NOT have control over when and where the cameras get turned on. They should be recording at all times when on-duty.
Clearly this upstanding citizen would not, under any circumstance, be expected to have coke on his person.
You Tube link=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqFk9hOollo
Why in error? The officer clearly shows it to the perp and other officer and places it in the wallet. Since it is likely he found it on the ground, the intent would be to keep it from blowing away. Showing it to the other officer and the perp was just to identify it and show why it was put in the billfold.
Do you think this officer just carried around cocaine so he could plant it on this guy, who was a paragon of virtue ? Given the crimes the guy had just committed, why would he even care to plant drugs on the perp?
> No audio. There is a reason for that. <
Evidently when an LAPD officer activates his body cam, it records both audio and video. But the cam automatically saves the last 30 seconds that were recorded before the activation, without audio.
> Why would it be ‘necessary’ to plant drugs on him? <
Good point. Maybe the drugs belonged to the suspect all along. But the cops decided to put the drugs in the suspect’s wallet to make for a stronger case. Something sure doesn’t look right here.
NYPOST selling laundry detergent using an incident that was about as far away from New York as one can go without taking a ship or airliner.
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.