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)
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
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 ?
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
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.
Did the perp test hot for cocaine after the accident ?
Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on black suspect
instead of...
Bodycam video shows LAPD cop planting drugs on suspect
LA is a tinder box stuff like this only lights the fuse.
Any drug convictions,even minor ones (small amount of pot) against the accused? Any other noteworthy convictions against the accused? Exactly what happened with the "hit and run" part of this case? (possession of narcotics is a good motive for leaving the scene of an accident).OTOH,any disciplinary actions taken against the cop(s) involved? How long has he/have they been on the force?
What I see and hear here doesn't clearly tell me what *did*,or *didn't*,happen here.
Having attended both a murder trial *and* the hearing in Connecticut a few years ago in which Michael Skakel was requesting a new trial I've seen,*up close and personal*,just how slimy defense lawyers can be.
Am I to believe that the cops, fully aware that their every move is recorded by SEVERAL cameras, openly and deliberately “planted” drugs on an arrested suspect for every one to see? Or, am I to believe that the suspect’s attorney is interjecting his own version of the video to “cast doubt” on the guilt of his client which would set him free?