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.
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.