Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 20, 2014, 09:06:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 63   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Police State - Official Thread  (Read 58080 times)
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6291



View Profile
« Reply #1275 on: August 03, 2013, 06:36:48 AM »

Only 60 police cars and 100 officers chasing a whole car with 2 passengers? They should have called for backup.



lol...these cops are unfuckingreal.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1276 on: August 03, 2013, 07:01:40 AM »

Nineteen of the 75 officers facing discipline for offenses ranging from engaging in a chase without permission to providing false information on police reports will have disciplinary hearings and might be suspended temporarily, according to The Plain Dealer.




Lol
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1277 on: August 03, 2013, 07:04:16 AM »

Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him(feet away, no duty to protect0
gothamist.com ^ | 26 July, 2013 | Rebecca Fishbein
Posted on August 3, 2013 9:54:14 AM EDT by marktwain

A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman's car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.

Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no "special duty" to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.

(Excerpt) Read more at gothamist.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6291



View Profile
« Reply #1278 on: August 03, 2013, 07:37:35 AM »

Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him(feet away, no duty to protect0
gothamist.com ^ | 26 July, 2013 | Rebecca Fishbein
Posted on August 3, 2013 9:54:14 AM EDT by marktwain

A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman's car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.

Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no "special duty" to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.

(Excerpt) Read more at gothamist.com ...




but..but...Agnostic claims they get rid of the cowards early on... lol

Just fucking disgusting.

Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18141


Team Nurse Bangers


View Profile
« Reply #1279 on: August 03, 2013, 01:03:05 PM »

Wait... They locked themselves in a car, but had no idea the guy was in danger?

Then why the fuck did you lock yourselves away?!

Epic pussies.

Well, we all know which side of the blue line he falls on.
Seriously, clearly those dudes missed the whole "to protect and serve" thing.

What a couple of fgts.
Report to moderator   Logged
Irongrip400
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7867


Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica


View Profile
« Reply #1280 on: August 03, 2013, 03:51:33 PM »

Seriously, clearly those dudes missed the whole "to protect and serve" thing.

What a couple of fgts.

Yes. Some are okay, the rest are just looking for a paycheck or are on a power trip.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1281 on: August 05, 2013, 05:23:35 AM »

By John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke

WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION




The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.

Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.

"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."

A spokesman with the Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, declined to comment.

But two senior DEA officials defended the program, and said trying to "recreate" an investigative trail is not only legal but a technique that is used almost daily.

A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, 'Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.

"PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION"

After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."

The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.

"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.

Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

A QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

"That's outrageous," said Tampa attorney James Felman, a vice chairman of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association. "It strikes me as indefensible."

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."

Lustberg and others said the government's use of the SOD program skirts established court procedures by which judges privately examine sensitive information, such as an informant's identity or classified evidence, to determine whether the information is relevant to the defense.

"You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"

Some lawyers say there can be legitimate reasons for not revealing sources. Robert Spelke, a former prosecutor who spent seven years as a senior DEA lawyer, said some sources are classified. But he also said there are few reasons why unclassified evidence should be concealed at trial.

"It's a balancing act, and they've doing it this way for years," Spelke said. "Do I think it's a good way to do it? No, because now that I'm a defense lawyer, I see how difficult it is to challenge."

CONCEALING A TIP

One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.

A senior DEA official said he was not aware of the case but said the agent should not have misled the prosecutor. How often such misdirection occurs is unknown, even to the government; the DEA official said the agency does not track what happens with tips after the SOD sends them to agents in the field.

The SOD's role providing information to agents isn't itself a secret. It is briefly mentioned by the DEA in budget documents, albeit without any reference to how that information is used or represented when cases go to court.

The DEA has long publicly touted the SOD's role in multi-jurisdictional and international investigations, connecting agents in separate cities who may be unwittingly investigating the same target and making sure undercover agents don't accidentally try to arrest each other.

SOD'S BIG SUCCESSES

The unit also played a major role in a 2008 DEA sting in Thailand against Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout; he was sentenced in 2011 to 25 years in prison on charges of conspiring to sell weapons to the Colombian rebel group FARC. The SOD also recently coordinated Project Synergy, a crackdown against manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of synthetic designer drugs that spanned 35 states and resulted in 227 arrests.

Since its inception, the SOD's mandate has expanded to include narco-terrorism, organized crime and gangs. A DEA spokesman declined to comment on the unit's annual budget. A recent LinkedIn posting on the personal page of a senior SOD official estimated it to be $125 million.

Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE.

The DICE database contains about 1 billion records, the senior DEA officials said. The majority of the records consist of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. Records are kept for about a year and then purged, the DEA officials said.

About 10,000 federal, state and local law enforcement agents have access to the DICE database, records show. They can query it to try to link otherwise disparate clues. Recently, one of the DEA officials said, DICE linked a man who tried to smuggle $100,000 over the U.S. southwest border to a major drug case on the East Coast.

"We use it to connect the dots," the official said.

"AN AMAZING TOOL"

Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst.

"They do a pretty good job of screening, but it can be a struggle to know for sure whether the person on a wiretap is American," the senior law enforcement official said.

Tips from domestic wiretaps typically occur when agents use information gleaned from a court-ordered wiretap in one case to start a second investigation.

As a practical matter, law enforcement agents said they usually don't worry that SOD's involvement will be exposed in court. That's because most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial and therefore never request to see the evidence against them. If cases did go to trial, current and former agents said, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement.

Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away.

"It was an amazing tool," said one recently retired federal agent. "Our big fear was that it wouldn't stay secret."

DEA officials said that the SOD process has been reviewed internally. They declined to provide Reuters with a copy of their most recent review. (Edited by Blake Morrison)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1282 on: August 05, 2013, 11:17:45 AM »

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman


Great article.  Civil Forfeiture laws are so absued its not even funny. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6291



View Profile
« Reply #1283 on: August 05, 2013, 08:06:10 PM »

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman


Great article.  Civil Forfeiture laws are so absued its not even funny. 



ughh...just fucking obscene


Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #1284 on: August 06, 2013, 12:18:11 AM »

ughh...just fucking obscene

If you're ever faced with such a situation, do yourself a favor: do not consent to a search. If arrested, do not answer any questions (except your name, date of birth and address) or sign anything. Ask to speak to a lawyer and patiently wait quietly.

Remember, the police are not your friends.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1285 on: August 08, 2013, 07:50:33 PM »

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/watch_out_infant_control_cop_pummels_vKIKf19unEH4U2TTzOwgPO

 Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
poldaktalos
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3571


You boob!


View Profile
« Reply #1286 on: August 14, 2013, 11:18:36 PM »

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Farm-Owners-Demand-Apology-From-Police-After-Drug-Raid-Comes-Up-Empty-219520531.html

"police officers say they stand by their actions"
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1287 on: August 16, 2013, 05:29:51 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html

Unbelievable. 
Report to moderator   Logged
poldaktalos
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3571


You boob!


View Profile
« Reply #1288 on: August 16, 2013, 05:43:25 AM »


Check above Wink

The cops "stand by their actions". They can't tell tomatoes from weed...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1289 on: August 16, 2013, 10:41:24 AM »

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/porn-seach-using-police-car-computer-785323



LMFAO!!!!!   HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #1290 on: August 16, 2013, 05:57:10 PM »


No doubt his union lawyer will argue that using evidence from his squad car computer is not appropriate and that all cops need to know about "young puffy nipple" to do their jobs...
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18141


Team Nurse Bangers


View Profile
« Reply #1291 on: August 16, 2013, 06:04:29 PM »

Lol.

The machine shop foreman at my job was recently busted for sitting in his office watching porn.

He promptly got a raise and makes an 1/8th million a year to do jack shit.

He is not well liked. The owner of our company is kind of a retard, and will pay someone that has an education a shit ton more and give them a ton more leeway, even if they are complete invalids incapable of doing their job. He will also completely ignore the people with the experience, unless they have some sort of higher education.

It's quite hilarious to watch him listen to these fucks fresh out of college that have no clue what theyre talking about, and then wonder why nothing works.

(Not discounting education at all, but the owner hasn't figured out which educated people to listen to and which experienced people to listen to... to him, education automatically means right, and experience = worthless)

The owner is the 3rd generation to have the company, and he's pretty well disliked by the people that worked for his dad/grandfather.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #1292 on: August 16, 2013, 06:12:44 PM »

Lol.

The machine shop foreman at my job was recently busted for sitting in his office watching porn.

He promptly got a raise and makes an 1/8th million a year to do jack shit.

He is not well liked. The owner of our company is kind of a retard, and will pay someone that has an education a shit ton more and give them a ton more leeway, even if they are complete invalids incapable of doing their job. He will also completely ignore the people with the experience, unless they have some sort of higher education.

It's quite hilarious to watch him listen to these fucks fresh out of college that have no clue what theyre talking about, and then wonder why nothing works.

(Not discounting education at all, but the owner hasn't figured out which educated people to listen to and which experienced people to listen to... to him, education automatically means right, and experience = worthless)

The owner is the 3rd generation to have the company, and he's pretty well disliked by the people that worked for his dad/grandfather.

The solution is simple: either quit your job and find another place, or if this isn't an option, simply refuse to share your expertise and just let the poorly qualified people take the lead into the inevitable disaster. Don't use your brain if your brain isn't wanted.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18141


Team Nurse Bangers


View Profile
« Reply #1293 on: August 16, 2013, 06:26:32 PM »

The solution is simple: either quit your job and find another place, or if this isn't an option, simply refuse to share your expertise and just let the poorly qualified people take the lead into the inevitable disaster. Don't use your brain if your brain isn't wanted.
I'm not particularly affected, as I'm not in a position where my decisions need to be approved by the boss. I'm at a lower level (as I just started with this company), and not in the machine shop. It's just amusing to me watching all the mid level guys cry like bitches.

 (Although to be fair, they have legitimate beefs, and im already starting to get annoyed that good ideas are tossed to the wayside because they didnt come from one of the guys with a couple years of community college for liberal arts)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5194


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1294 on: August 20, 2013, 05:33:11 AM »



Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

By Timothy B. Lee, Updated: August 19, 2013


(Photo by Ninja M.)


If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.

In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.

The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.

But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn’t have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It’s arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on “facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month.”

© The Washington Post Company
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #1295 on: August 20, 2013, 12:22:18 PM »


Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

By Timothy B. Lee, Updated: August 19, 2013


(Photo by Ninja M.)


If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.

In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.

The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.

But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn’t have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It’s arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on “facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month.”

© The Washington Post Company


There are actually two cases – the one described in this article is U.S. v. Wurie, but Riley v. California is a lot more interesting in my opinion.

Either way, I do hope for a sensible decision by the Supremes. The ability of police to search "containers" incident to arrest was, originally, framed as a safety measure and was limited to containers large enough to hold things like weapons, although it eventually became a tool for searching for drugs as well.

Frankly, allowing the searches of cell phones is a horrible invasion of privacy. Hopefully the Supremes will stand against that†.

† Yes, this sentence is drenched in irony. After all, it's not like they haven't already destroyed every notion of privacy...
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3612



View Profile
« Reply #1296 on: August 28, 2013, 06:11:47 AM »

What has been adopted by our department since the rulings is that an officer must have articulable clear probable cause to believe the phone contains evidence of the crime they are investigating. A random search of a phone during a traffic stop for example where there is no indication of a crime other than the traffic violation would be prohibited. That's in line with how we operated for the most part already but the recent rulings gave better guidance than was available before.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3428


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #1297 on: August 28, 2013, 12:03:25 PM »

The following excerpt is from http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/when-cops-lie/Content?oid=3693931:

Quote
In the summer of 2008, the Oakland Police Department's Internal Affairs Division discovered that more than half of all drug-related search warrants involving confidential informants had been falsified. Internal affairs investigated eighteen officers for lying under oath, falsifying police reports, and conducting illegal searches and seizures. [...]

Karla Rush, an officer based in East Oakland, faced especially severe charges. Of the 40 search warrants she had filed between March of 2007 and August 2008, 39 were fraudulent. Rush claimed that her misconduct was the result of poor training, but an arbitrator rejected her assertion, saying, "telling the truth is not a matter of training," according to court documents.

Although internal affairs recommended firing twelve officers, only four ended up losing their jobs: Rush, Francisco Martinez, John Kelly, and William Burke. Of those four, three have since been rehired by Alameda County police agencies: Burke was reinstated by OPD through arbitration in 2010, and both Rush and Kelly are now UC Berkeley police officers.

Which police department would hire anyone who provably falsified 97.5% of all search warrants applications she filed? Which police department would rehire someone that another department had fired for misconduct?

And, to be blunt, why was she not prosecuted for perjury and lying under oath for submitting those bogus, false affidavits to a Judge?

Damn... the Oakland PD is a cesspool.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #1298 on: August 28, 2013, 12:29:52 PM »

What has been adopted by our department since the rulings is that an officer must have articulable clear probable cause to believe the phone contains evidence of the crime they are investigating. A random search of a phone during a traffic stop for example where there is no indication of a crime other than the traffic violation would be prohibited. That's in line with how we operated for the most part already but the recent rulings gave better guidance than was available before.

Could you offer a short list of examples, 007?
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3251


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


View Profile
« Reply #1299 on: August 28, 2013, 01:10:57 PM »

The following excerpt is from http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/when-cops-lie/Content?oid=3693931:

Which police department would hire anyone who provably falsified 97.5% of all search warrants applications she filed? Which police department would rehire someone that another department had fired for misconduct?

And, to be blunt, why was she not prosecuted for perjury and lying under oath for submitting those bogus, false affidavits to a Judge?

Damn... the Oakland PD is a cesspool.

Yeah, this thread is like a trip through the Twilight Zone. It can be very painful to look, no shit.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 50 51 [52] 53 54 ... 63   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!