Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on black suspect: lawyer

NY Post ^ | November 10, 2017 | Chris Perez

[Leaning Right]

> 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 <

That’s a bit of a stretch there, FRiend. Cops are supposed to put evidence in evidence bags.

[Theoria]

'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.'

Since the officer made it a point to point that out and the centerpiece of the case on the suspect. The officer then says in the report that the drugs were found in the suspects front pocket. Odd.

And it's odd that the officer wasn't recording the 'arrest' at all and didn't hit the record button until the after had picked up the items. The no audio portion is from the 30 secs prior to 'recording'.

[UCANSEE2]

But the cops decided to put the drugs in the suspect’s wallet to make for a stronger case.

You must be kidding. The 'location' of the drugs makes no difference in the courtroom.

If you watch the video, you clearly see the cop holding the bag up in front of the other officer and perp, making sure they see it and see him place it in the billfold.

If you are going to do something illegal (plant evidence), do you hold it up in front of the accused and explain what you are doing ?

The movement of his hands, up and down slightly make it seem like he is TALKING to the officer and perp while completing the action (placing it in the billfold).

The officer also makes a point of letting the other officers (tasked with COLLECTING the EVIDENCE) that the BAG (which was found in the perp's shirt pocket and laying loose on the ground after the initial search) was in the billfold. This seemed to be an attempt by the officer to CLARIFY why it was in the billfold instead of loose.

The only other option would be that the officer thought he would get a promotion if the bust included drugs.

1: I doubt that, given that they probably find drugs on most of the people they arrest in LA.

2: Again, he would have to risk carrying drugs on his person all day, with a high likelihood of being around police drug sniffing dogs.

[vette6387]

“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? “

Well I have a Black friend who was a LAPD officer in San Pedro for ten years. He left the force because of the abuse his department brought on black people in which they came into contact.
I am not saying that I believe that Blacks are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes, they are, and probably this guy who was arrested was good for something. But that does not mean the cops get to “manufacture evidence.”
Never talk to the cops is good advice. They are not your friend when they stop you.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is what evidence bags are for.

Even if the “ultimate” conclusion by the jury and at appellate levels is that this remains valid evidence, it still resulted in wasting a lot of court time. We might well ask why do THAT? Because the officer felt so free to wing it? And if he’d wing something like this, what else would he wing?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

This is another example of why all cops in all interactions with the public should be required to wear body cams, with no option to turn them off. This cop was caught because he didn't realize his body cam buffered video for 10 seconds before he started recording.

Real incidents of abuse by the police like this undermine the credibility of good cops - incidents like this which don't get caught on video help to perpetuate the automatic refusal to trust or believe the police in the black community.

[UCANSEE2]

That’s a bit of a stretch there, FRiend. Cops are supposed to put evidence in evidence bags.

Until someone gets out an evidence bag, and writes the ID on it, what do you do with evidence laying on the ground that is light enough to blow away by a shuffle of the feet? (remember the cop was behind the perp and picked the bag up off the ground). Which officer had official 'control' of the evidence bag ? Was it the officer that is the subject of this discussion ?

[samtheman]

Why didn’t the NYPost expand on that and provide more details?
—
Because journalists have lost all touch with journalism?

[Newbomb Turk]

Did the perp test hot for cocaine after the accident ?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Continuing to hold it in plain sight would be the next best thing.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And yeah you will come up with some other excuse probably. Like he had to do something else and couldn’t even hold the bag that long.

Why not bags and pens kept in uniform pocket, at least a couple.

This will waste much court time and raise needless scandal at the least. I don’t think we want to be excusing this.

[Leaning Right]

> Until someone gets out an evidence bag, and writes the ID on it, what do you do with evidence laying on the ground that is light enough to blow away by a shuffle of the feet? <

How about putting it in your own pocket, or in the trunk of your squad car? I sure as heck wouldn’t mingle it with any of the suspect’s other possessions. That’s against every last rule of evidence-handling, and doesn’t make any sense...unless you were trying to frame someone.

[UCANSEE2]

Since the officer made it a point to point that out and the centerpiece of the case on the suspect.

Difficult to tell the point you are trying to make as the sentence is incomplete. However, I think I get it. Do you think the officer was trying to make it the centerpiece of the case (felony hit and run wasn't good enough?) or that he was trying to make sure everyone knew that he had taken it off the ground and placed it in the billfold ?

The officer then says in the report that the drugs were found in the suspects front pocket. Odd.

Not odd if you factor in the following:

1. The bag was found in his pocket during the search on the ground. It was layed down like the other items seen on the ground.

2. It was light enough to blow away. Maybe it already had blown behind the perp and wasn't laying close to the other items.

3. The officer is reporting the truth on where it was originally found and made sure those on scene, including the perp, saw him place it in the billfold.

And it's odd that the officer wasn't recording the 'arrest' at all and didn't hit the record button until the after had picked up the items.

Maybe the 'arrest' part was over and he had turned it off. That part of the video may be what was shown in court. Maybe he forgot to turn it on when he got out of the police car in excitement of a high speed chase with a hit and run. Maybe when he started holding up the bag and explaining why he was putting it in the billfold, the other officer told him he needed to turn his BC on.

BUT... if you were told those things, the media would have no DIRTY LAUNDRY to sell. No one would read further if they told the whole truth about the incident.

Who knows, maybe you are right and a rookie cop thought if he planted cocaine on a felony hit and run suspect that he would get promoted to detective. In LA, where drugs are rampant and commonplace.

[UCANSEE2]

If you really want to evaluate the intent and truth of this story, ask yourself why the title is:

Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on black suspect

instead of...

Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on suspect

[2001convSVT]

LA is a tinder box stuff like this only lights the fuse.

[Always A Marine]

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 ?

All they can do with the legitimate charges is arrest the guy and send him to prison. But with drugs, they can confiscate and sell his car and its contents. Justice now has a profit motive.

[Leaning Right]

> If you really want to evaluate the intent and truth of this story, ask yourself why the title is: Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on black suspect <

I gotta tell you, that title did bother me. Why was it necessary to give the race of the suspect? Just to get folks more riled up than they already are?

I even looked at a few other articles that covered this story. Thought about posting one of them instead. But then this snip from the Post article pretty much convinced me that, like it or not, the race angle might be relevant after all:

"The LAPD has had a notoriously bad relationship with the black community, with countless men and women coming forward with claims of police brutality and discrimination over the years."

[usconservative]

I fail to see why the Officer was Not immediately REMANDED in to custody for Felony Perjury? Judge needs to be FIRED.

Because that would require an actual charge first followed by a conviction.

Just a guess here, you don't like due process very much do you?

[marktwain]

That’s a bit of a stretch there, FRiend. Cops are supposed to put evidence in evidence bags.

---

It was put in the evidence bag, just put in the wallet first.

And he shows it to several officers to show what he had done.

[UCANSEE2]

But that does not mean the cops get to “manufacture evidence.”

In what way was this 'manufactured' evidence ?

Do you think the cop was carrying small baggies of cocaine to plant on a felony hit and run /high speed chase suspect ?

IF not, then he had to have picked it up off the ground. Where do you suppose it came from?

Whether in his shirt pocket or in his billfold, the law/justice system doesn't really care if it was found up your rectum. It was ON YOUR PERSON period. There was no benefit to the officer placing it in the suspect's billfold EXCEPT to keep it from getting blown/swept away while it was lying on the ground, apparently separate from the other evidence(billfold) or had already gotten knocked (perhaps even kicked on purpose by the perp) away from where they layed it when they found it in his pocket. Even more logical is that the billfold was in his rear pocket and the billfold was layed near there, while the bag was found in his shirt pocket which would be the opposite end of the body trunk and may have even involved both officers searching him and laying out different items.