Posted on 08/07/2002 9:05:36 AM PDT by Printers Angel
Just past midnight on Feb. 2, Brittany Scheerer and her boyfriend were driving home from a friend's house when a car began following them.
They had just turned onto Rt. 161 from a New Albany subdivision. The car behind Scheerer was so close that she couldn't see its headlights in her rearview mirror.
The car followed her closely for about 3 miles on the dimly lit roadway. Scheerer wondered whether the driver was drunk. Or worse, did he have a gun?
As they were about to cross into Licking County, lights atop the vehicle behind them flashed blue and red. Scheerer was being pulled over.
Officer Kevin Deckop of the New Albany Police Department cited Scheerer because the tinted windows on her silver Hyundai Tiburon were too dark.
The day Scheerer paid the $50 ticket, she also filed a complaint with New Albany police. Deckop, she said, had followed her too closely and changed lanes three times before stopping her.
Police later called her in to meet with Sgt. Ed Burton. Scheerer said Burton was gruff and intimidating while questioning her about the complaint.
He was the same when he took her into a room to show her a videotape of the traffic stop recorded by the camera in Deckop's cruiser.
While she watched, Burton continued to question her about her claims, Scheerer said. She refused to back down. Burton then took her into another room and arrested her, saying she violated a year-old state law that makes it illegal to file a false complaint against a police officer.
Once handcuffed, Scheerer was driven to the Franklin County jail, where the 18-year-old honor student was strip-searched and led to a cell.
"I was thinking: 'What just happened?' I didn't know how to react. I went blank,'' Scheerer said recently from her Pataskala home, where she lives with her parents.
She stayed there until her father bailed her out later that morning.
New Albany police alleged Scheerer was so enraged about the ticket that she tried to ruin Deckop's reputation by filing the complaint against him.
In April, a Franklin County Municipal Court jury sided with Scheerer. They found that her claim about how the officer followed her matched what they saw on the patrol-car videotape.
"We definitely feel she thought she was telling the truth,'' said Mark Lensenmayer, the jury foreman in the trial. "She felt she had been wronged. I think the girl showed a tremendous amount of courage in not backing down.''
Neither New Albany's police chief nor Burton would comment on the case, nor would New Albany's prosecutor or its law director. The department and village are defendants in a lawsuit Scheerer filed last month.
She and two others in Franklin County have been charged under the law, which took effect in March 2001, that makes filing a false complaint a misdemeanor offense.
A Columbus woman was sentenced to 12 days in jail because she falsely claimed a State Highway Patrol trooper improperly touched her during a traffic stop. A Franklin County man was charged in January after alleging that during a traffic stop, the officer refused to give the man his badge number.
Supporters of the law say it was not created to shield officers from all complaints, only those filed by people who know them to be false.
"I'm sure when people sat down to write that law, they didn't envision a situation like this,'' Lensenmayer said about Scheerer's case.
New Albany police could have dismissed Scheerer's complaint instead of arresting her. And they didn't have to jail her, said her attorney, James McNamara. They could have allowed her to leave with a summons to appear in court.
"It doesn't make sense to make it scary or dangerous for a citizen to go down and make a complaint about a policeman,'' McNamara said.
"Unfortunately the lesson is: You should be afraid to complain to the government for fear of punishment.''
Scheerer isn't looking forward to another courtroom battle. However, she said, it could help the next person who files what they consider a valid complaint against a police officer.
"I hope it doesn't come back on them, like it did on me.''
You just need to "tag" it. (</SARCASM>)
She and two others in Franklin County have been charged under the law, which took effect in March 2001, that makes filing a false complaint a misdemeanor offense.
Oh, it gets much better:
Looks like the crooked cop and prosecutor may be looking for some new employers.... Indiana law also provides triple damages, since the victim had to resort to a civil suit...and the prosecutor could face disbarment for violation of the Indiana Canons of Ethics for an attorney as well.
-archy-/-
Indiana Code, IC 35-44:
ARTICLE 44. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
IC 35-44-1
Chapter 1. Bribery, Conflict of Interest, and Official Misconduct
IC 35-44-1-2
Sec. 2. A public servant who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally performs an act that he is forbidden by law to perform;
(2) performs an act he is not authorized by law to perform, with intent to obtain any property for himself;
(3) knowingly or intentionally solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from his appointee or employee any property other than what he is authorized by law to accept as a condition of continued employment;
(4) knowingly or intentionally acquires or divests himself of a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise or aids another person to do so based on information obtained by virtue of his office that official action that has not been made public is contemplated;
(5) knowingly or intentionally fails to deliver public records and property in his custody to his successor in office when that successor qualifies; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally violates IC 36-6-4-17(b);
commits official misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.54; Acts 1980, P.L.73, SEC.2; P.L.34-1992, SEC.2.
***** ***** *****
IC 35-45-6
Chapter 6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations IC 35-45-6-1
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
"Documentary material" means any document, drawing, photograph, recording, or other tangible item containing compiled data from which information can be either obtained or translated into a usable form.
"Enterprise" means: (1) a sole proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, business trust, or governmental entity; or
(2) a union, an association, or a group, whether a legal entity or merely associated in fact.
"Pattern of racketeering activity" means engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intent, result, accomplice, victim, or method of commission, or that are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics that are not isolated incidents. However, the incidents are a pattern of racketeering activity only if at least one (1) of the incidents occurred after August 31, 1980, and if the last of the incidents occurred within five (5) years after a prior incident of racketeering activity.
"Racketeering activity" means to commit, to attempt to commit, to conspire to commit a violation of, or aiding and abetting in a violation of any of the following:
(1) A provision of IC 23-2-1, or of a rule or order issued under IC 23-2-1.
(2) A violation of IC 35-45-9.
(3) A violation of IC 35-47.
(4) A violation of IC 35-49-3.
(5) Murder (IC 35-42-1-1).
(6) Battery as a Class C felony (IC 35-42-2-1).
(7) Kidnapping (IC 35-42-3-2).
(8) Child exploitation (IC 35-42-4-4).
(9) Robbery (IC 35-42-5-1).
(10) Carjacking (IC 35-42-5-2).
(11) Arson (IC 35-43-1-1).
(12) Burglary (IC 35-43-2-1).
(13) Theft (IC 35-43-4-2).
(14) Receiving stolen property (IC 35-43-4-2).
(15) Forgery (IC 35-43-5-2).
(16) Fraud (IC 35-43-5-4(1) through IC 35-43-5-4(9)).
(17) Bribery (IC 35-44-1-1).
(18) Official misconduct (IC 35-44-1-2).
(19) Conflict of interest (IC 35-44-1-3).
(20) Perjury (IC 35-44-2-1).
(21) Obstruction of justice (IC 35-44-3-4).
(22) Intimidation (IC 35-45-2-1).
(23) Promoting prostitution (IC 35-45-4-4).
(24) Promoting professional gambling (IC 35-45-5-4).
(25) Dealing in or manufacturing cocaine, a narcotic drug, or methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1).
(26) Dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2).
(27) Dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3).
(28) Dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-4).
(29) Dealing in marijuana, hash oil, or hashish (IC 35-48-4-10).
(30) Money laundering (IC 35-45-15-5).
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.199, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.190-1984, SEC.1; P.L.180-1991, SEC.10; P.L.230-1993, SEC.4; P.L.8-1993, SEC.511; P.L.112-1998, SEC.1; P.L.17-2001, SEC.16.
IC 35-45-6-2
Sec. 2. A person:
(1) who has knowingly or intentionally received any proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a pattern of racketeering activity, and who uses or invests those proceeds or the proceeds derived from them to acquire an interest in property or to establish or to operate an enterprise; (2) who through a pattern of racketeering activity, knowingly or intentionally acquires or maintains, either directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of property or an enterprise; or (3) who is employed by or associated with an enterprise, and who knowingly or intentionally conducts or otherwise participates in the activities of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; commits corrupt business influence, a Class C felony.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.199, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.211-1991, SEC.9.
You sound surprised. What kind of Law Enforcement Officers did you think we have out there protecting us these days?
It's not 1950 anymore honey. In many towns (and states for that matter), Law Enforcement is no more than one more armed gang to deal with.
Sad
I get double-p*ssed when I read articles like this. Citizens shouldn't have to put up with it, and it makes it twice as hard for cops who are trying to do a good job.
She was offered an opportunity to get out of the ticket, however. In some states what she was asked to do is illegal.
The problem is she knew, and knows, that she can't win. The officer didn't have the camera on, so it was his word against hers.
It's a shame that a few really bad cops make the rest look like thugs.
Of course this revenuer could tell the exact transmissivity of back glass in the dark with his headlights shining on it! Uh-huh, Suuuuuuure, Melvin. He should be ticketed for following too close. It's no excuse for the ding-dongs that we hire to patrol our highways to do that unless they are code 3 with their lights on.
They like to follow right on your bumper in hopes that you will speed up so they can haul you over for speeding. That's a favorite trick out here in Oregon and Washington.
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.