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 ...
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.
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.