by Lawrence J. Smith of PINAC

Despite favorable court rulings for citizens and adverse publicity for law enforcement, cops in Florida have not received the memo that they are not allowed to suppress the First Amendment through wiretapping charges.

Not only is a South Florida woman preparing to sue the Broward County Sheriff’s Office after she was violently dragged out of her car for recording a traffic stop last year, a North Florida man is suing the Bay County Sheriff’s Office for arresting him after he admitted in traffic court last year that he had recorded the initial stop.

Derrick Ryan Bacon is seeking unspecified damages in his seven-count, 23-page complaint filed Feb. 11 in U.S. District Court in which he alleges Bay County sheriff’s deputies Ryan Robbins and Chad Vidrine falsely arrested him on wiretapping charges after they learned he recorded Vidrine during a traffic stop nearly 18 months ago.

In his suit, Bacon avers he “lawfully used a cellular phone to video and audio record Vidrine’s interactions with” him. At his bench trial two months later, Bacon informed Judge Maria Dykes about the recording.

Upon conclusion of the trial, in which Dykes found him guilty of speeding, and fined him $125, Bacon says he was approached by Robbins and Vidrine, who began interrogating him about the recording. After again admitting he recorded the encounter, Bacon alleges Vidrine arrested him on Robbins’ orders.

According to the suit, Bacon was placed in a patrol car for an unspecified period time in which “Robbins and Vidrine conspired in an attempt to find a crime with which to charge [him].” Later, Bacon was “ ‘un-arrested’”, and Robbins and Vidrine sent an affidavit to the 14th District State Attorney’s Office seeking to have him charged with wiretapping.

Under Florida law, a person who discloses the “contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication” with another person who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and without their consent, faces 1-5 years in prison and a maximum $5,000 fine. Also, the law allows for anyone the subject of an unauthorized recording to sue the person making it for civil damages.

However, in a letter dated Jan. 15, 2013, Assistant State Attorney Megan Ford informed Vidrine charges would not be filed against Bacon due to a lack of probable cause. In her letter, which a secretary read to Photography is Not a Crime over the telephone, Ford specifically said the lack of probable cause was the lack of a recording of the encounter between Bacon and Vidrine.

“The only evidence we have to prove a crime was committed is the defendant’s statement he did record the officer during the traffic stop,” Ford said. “ The state is required to prove corpus deliciti [Latin for “body of crime] and the body of crime was actually committed. Courts have routinely held in cases that confessions are not enough to prove corpus except in cases of child sexual abuse”

“The evidence that is needed is the actually recording,” she added. “As of yet there’s no proof that the recording is on the phone.

Despite Ford’s no probable cause finding, Bacon maintains Robbins and Vidrine continued to give him the impression he would be arrested.

According to the lawsuit, it was not until June 20 that his cell phone was returned, and he was informed of Ford’s no probable cause finding. During those six months, Bacon claims he had to purchase a new cell phone, and hired legal counsel out of fear Robbins and Vidrine “would hunt him down and again falsely arrest him.”

In his suit, Bacon makes claims against the defendants for, among other things, violations of his First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution as well as malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Bacon’s case is the latest example of police using their state’s wiretapping law in an effort to harass, and intimidate citizens from recording their encounters with them:

Anthony Graber faced the possibility of 16 years in prison if convicted on the four wiretapping charges for which he was indicted in the Spring of 2010 for posting on You Tube a recording of a plainclothes Maryland State Trooper stopping him after swearing in and out of traffic, and popping a wheeling on his motorcycle. However, Hartford County Circuit Judge Emory L. Plitt later that Fall dismissed the charges finding “the video taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment.”
The American Civil Liberties Union was successful in challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act which included a 15-year prison sentence for someone who produced an audio recording of a law enforcement officer without his or her consent. In November 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let stand the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision from the previous May that found the 1961 law unconstitutional.
A case the 7th Circuit relied on in rendering its opinion was Glik v. Cunniffe, et. al. In Glik, the 1st Circuit affirmed a district judge’s decision denying qualified immunity to the Boston Police Department, and three of its officers in a civil rights suit brought against them by Simon Glik after they charged him with, among other things, wiretapping for filming them arresting a suspect on Boston Commons in 2007. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the appellate court found since the officers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they lacked probable cause to arrest him, Glik’s constitutional rights were violated. The case set a precedent in determining First Amendment protections extended beyond journalists to citizens in recording public officials in their duties.
The Glik decision is among several cases cited by Bacon’s attorney Christopher Dillingham II of Plymouth. Bacon’s case is assigned to Judge Richard Smoak.

Meanwhile, Brandy Berning of Fort Lauderdale is preparing to sue the Broward County Sheriff’s Office for her arrest last year in which she was dragged out of the car, accused of felony wiretapping, even though she ended up spending the night in jail on a single misdemeanor resisting arrest charges.

Broward County Sheriff General Counsel Ron Gunzenburger is confident his department will prevail in Berning’s suit.

“BSO feels very comfortable that we will prevail in court under the current state of the law when/if this potential litigant sues,” he stated in a comment left on PINAC.

Officer Friendly

by Rick Horowitz Amicus Curia [Rick Horowitz, an attorney, complained about his editorial remarks being reposted or distributed. Hence, this re-editorializing to the same effect without attribution crediting him, or his vicarious harassment.]

Believing that law enforcement officers are good guys is one of the linchpins of our society; probably of all societies, even where they don’t officially call them “law enforcement” officers.  But to believe in law enforcement officers, we must be able to believe law enforcement officers.

Nearly everybody wants to believe in the tooth fairy and officer friendly–you know, the badge & uniform decorated gun toting billy club swinging pal we all have. He may be a friend who  searches body cavities, but he’s still our friend. Unfortunately, officer friendly’s penchant for telling the truth has come into serious question, by those you’d think benefit by their dissembling and lying under oath the most–District Attorneys and trial judges!

So far that doesn’t seem to be a problem for the majority of submitizens, even though newspapers as small as the Fresno Bee contain at least one — and usually more than one — story almost every day about the illegal activities of police officers.

Many local newspapers now routinely carry stories detailing the scandals of police corruption, falsifying of reports, and planting evidence…or withholding it…to manipulate the justice system which ultimately translates into many factually innocent defendants being convicted and sentenced to hard prison time.

But there’s one type of malfeasance in which police officers engage even more routinely that usually goes unreported.  Until now.

Corruption in our public officials has become the cesspool of our democracy today. But now some notice is being taken about how deeply this culture of corruption has penetrated the thin blue line, the ones we’ve entrusted to uphold our values, our principles, and our laws–to protect and to serve: Police officers who have sworn to uphold the law–all the laws, including the civil rights of all citizens.

Serving & Protecting

The Wall Street Journal reports that,

According to a Wall Street Journal article,

In a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized. (Amir Efrati, “Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie” (January 29, 2009) Wall Street Journal.)

And, trust me (I’m not a police officer), Chicago is not unique.

Does this damn Chicago with faint praise, or are police officers there only following suit and fitting in with a  corrupt police culture that spans the breadth of the nation?

Patrick, over at PopeHat, reports in “A Rickety, Wooden Story” about two police officers who wanted in to a man’s house because they believed another man they wished to arrest was there.  They had no legal right to enter the house and the man refused them entry.  Thereupon, they beat him, tasered him and arrested him for assaulting police officers.  Fortunately, these cops were stupid and both wrote reports and repeatedly testified about the “rickety, wooden porch” which required one cop to stick his foot inside the door to stabilize himself, supposedly provoking the man’s attack.  Unfortunately (for the cops), the porch was made of concrete.  The only thing rickety was their fabricated story.

One reporter (“A Rickety, Wooden Story”) tells of how 2 cops entered a man’s house seeking to arrest a suspect they believed was hiding within. When the resident balked at permitting them entry, rather than seeking an arrest/search warrant, they summarily brutally beat and tased him then charged and arrested him for assaulting a cop to cover their ass. Then, serendipity struck. It wasn’t for nothing these cops were known as the dumbest flatfoots on the force. Each perjured themselves in their sworn affidavits when they declared a rickety wooden porch caused them to put a foot through the door to keep from losing their balance, thereby provoking the resident into assaulting them…except there was NO wooden porch–the stoop was composed of solid concrete. Rather than a flimsy porch, it was their flimsy story which ended up doing them in.

Not all police officers lies are as blatant as this, of course.  In San Francisco, a woman spent 20 months in jail, awaiting trial on attempted murder.  Though there was no evidence that a crime had even been committed, a police officer revised an earlier story about hearing a shot and seeing a car; months after the fact, he identified an innocent woman as the shooter.  A jury acquitted the woman after police, who had safeguarded the bullet in an evidence locker for two years, “disposed” of it three days into the trial.  The Public Defender was glad that the jury had seen through the lies.  But did they see through the lies?  Or did they merely think the officer was mistaken?  That case had so many weaknesses it’s hard to tell.

Most cops are not quite this obtuse and lie more effectively. Some are decent people and a credit to their uniform, thank God!  But others are responsible for miscarriages of justice such as an innocent San Francisco woman who spent almost 2 years in custody awaiting trial on a charge of attempted murder. Despite a lack of evidence of any crime whatsoever, in typical knee jerk fashion, our justice system lurched from pillar to post like a bull in a china shop. One officer changed his story about sighting a car and hearing gunfire.  Months later, he fingered an innocent woman as the culprit. But, a jury didn’t agree. They acquitted her. They weren’t impressed with the revelation of how the police who had preserved the alleged bullet in an evidence locker for 2 long years destroyed/lost it 3 days into the trial proceedings. Although the defense attorney seemed pleased the jury had rejected the lies, had they? Or did they conclude the LEO had made a good faith mistake? Is there a distinction between corruption and incompetence or is it one without a meaningful difference. If an innocent defendant ends up on death row due to a corrupt judge, or an incompetent one, does he/she really care which given the end result will be the same? Court records are rife with such miscarriages of justice. Lying cops exacerbate the problem tremendously.

And then, of course, there are the “testiliars” who get away with it.  Shockingly, this is not really a secret.

Too many cops who perjure themselves are never held accountable. Judges are too often indifferent or never met a cop they didn’t like. They turn a blind eye to the perjury and fail to do justice by all the parties–they fail in their primary mission which is to ensure the trial proceedings are conducted as a search for the truth.

“It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers,” though it’s difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That’s because the exclusionary rule “sets up a great incentive for…police to lie.”  –(Amir Efrati, “Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie” (January 29, 2009) Wall Street Journal (emphasis added).)–

I still remember when I first learned about this.  I was stunned.  Prior to becoming a criminal defense attorney, I thought that most police officers were good and figured, at most, ten percent were “bad cops.”  As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Fresno, Tulare, Madera and Kings Counties, I’ve come to learn that, at best, the percentages are reversed when it comes to testilying.  As the WSJ article points out, “there’s a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street.”  Police officers figure it’s okay to break the law in order to get a conviction against someone who they believe has broken the law.  After all, the someone being convicted isn’t them.

It’s a sad day when our innocence about the police is destroyed, when the choices we saw as children to become a fireman, policeman, doctor, nurse, butcher, banker, or candlestick maker become a fiction, an illusion. Did our parents not tell us policemen were our friend, that if we were in trouble to find one and tell what happened? But, our parents did us a disservice to hide the fact that many policemen are not our friend–far from it, that they beat, kill, lie, bully, provoke, set people up, and even rape. Yeah, there’s bad apples in any broad cross section of people, but the shocking truth is the bad apples in the ranks of police are NOT exceptions or ‘rogue’ cops, they’re common–some even say these officers are the rule, and they should know because these critics deal with the police frequently. These cops excuse themselves with the belief they have to break/bend the law to enforce it, to make sure the ‘bad’ guy gets what he deserves, to give the law a little nudge/boost to make certain the criminals get convicted. They deliberately put their finger on the scales of justice to skew it.

The problem is that sometimes police officers are wrong.

But, setting one’s self up as judge, jury, and executioner is a slippery slope. There’s a reason why it’s said the road to perdition is paved with ‘good’ intentions. This God complex among cops leads to innocent people being condemned to Hell on earth. These state sponsored thugs become more dangerous to the social fabric than the criminal element itself and exercise the same ethics of convenience cut from the same warp and weave.

It leaves you to wonder: “How many innocent people are sitting in jails and prisons because of police testiliars?”

How many innocent people are in prison today or even on death row because of lying cops?

[Editor’s Note: Mr. Rick Horowitz, or someone claiming that name and to be an attorney, filed a fraudulent DMCA take-down notice regarding the above article. Obviously any potentially objectionable material with respect to copyright has been removed/struck-out, as is self evident. Nevertheless, Mr. Horowitz continued to make threats through e-mail and has now opted to manipulate the host service to harass the editor vicariously. This is now an old dodge familiar to many internet publishers. An investigation has been launched to determine if he is an attorney and, if so, what his bar number is so a bar complaint against him can be filed.]

BTW, here’s a pic of the p**k.

Rick Horowitz – #248684
Bar Number: 248684
Address:
The Law Office of Rick Horowitz
2014 Tulare St Ste 627
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone Number: (559) 233-8886
Fax Number: (559) 233-8887
e-mail: rick@rhdefense.com
Undergraduate School:
California St Univ Fresno; Fresno CA
Law School:
San Joaquin COL; Fresno CA
County: Fresno
District: District 5
Sections:
Criminal Law
Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
Admitted to The State Bar of California: 4-14-2007

“The only profession hated more than cops is attorneys!” (Even cops loathe them.)

“It’s better to be a mouse in a cat’s mouth than a client in the hands of an attorney!” -Spanish Proverb-

by Brandon Weber

During the filming of a story about chronic homelessness, Anderson Cooper met a lot of people who live on the street. He got to know many of them on a personal level, which made him aware that he didn’t even acknowledge a homeless person in his own neighborhood.

I certainly am more aware now when I see people down on their luck. It’s easy to do the big city thang and just walk on by, no eye contact, nothing to see here. But as Cooper says: “This is my issue. Me pretending not to see this person is insane. It’s offensive.”

Consumers Warned To Keep Their Purchases Close–Very Close

Shelton’s Walmart Wants Your Stuff

Shelton, WA — This town’s Walmart appears to practice selling its merchandise TWICE (once isn’t enough) if you’re inattentive enough to leave it behind after paying for it at the checkout stand. This reporter had the misfortune to find out about this deceptive business practice after inadvertently leaving a couple of clothing article purchases behind, the last ones on the shelf in the right size.

Adam, the late shift store manager on 2-17-14 got everything right…well, almost…when he received a call inquiring if the missing purchases had been left behind. He asked for information on the sales receipt including the time of the purchase, the checkout register number, and the item stocking number. Within a couple of minutes he had ascertained from the store’s video camera that the purchased merchandise had indeed been left behind after the sale. “Can you come back tonight to pick them up?” he asked. “No, we’re tired. We’ll try to make it in tomorrow instead,” was the reply.

‘Tomorrow’ was replete with inclement weather and flooding which preventing transiting the Skokomish Valley road. Wednesday would have to do. Adam had stated, after all, “This isn’t our first rodeo.” What he meant was it was common for customers to forget an item or bag of stuff they’d purchased at the checkout stand. So, from a titanic sized operation like Walmart, this was reassuring. WRONG! Very wrong. Things were rapidly deteriorating from bad to worse as a shopping experience.

Although Adam promised to hold the purchased merchandise, he did not take sufficient steps to accomplish this. The items  had a presumed date affixed when the customer would return to retrieve them along with the purchaser’s name. Most retailers would have the common sense to figure out a rainy day doesn’t translate to a quit claim deed. Walmart employees appear to need the obvious pointed out to them: You cannot sell (even once, let alone twice) what you do not own!…not legally, anyway. But, Walmart tried. Adam hadn’t yet arrived for his shift on Wednesday and none of the staff seemed able to find the purchased items. The customer service desk advised the items had probably been placed on the sales floor once again. WHAT?? A purchased item that had been paid for and belonging to the customer was going to be sold twice by the vendor, Walmart? “Uh, you didn’t pick it up by yesterday,” the clerk drawled. “Let me speak with the manager,” demanded the customer.

The day shift manager couldn’t find the item where it should have been–somewhere other than back on the shelf of the sales floor. So, she went there to look for it. Not finding it there, she heard a lecture from the purchaser of how Walmart was not entitled to arrogantly take other people’s property, date ‘expiration’ or not, and sell it TWICE! The manager was reminded a fundamental element of business law and private property is you cannot sell, lawfully, what you do not own. It was suggested Walmart may be routinely engaging in a deceptive business practice. “You didn’t pick it up by the date attached to the items,” she muttered. She seemed to have NO explanation for why Walmart would do such a thing. However, to her credit, she finally did locate the misappropriated items in Walmart’s RESTOCKING BIN/CART!

Ah, but wait–it gets better. Adam received a call later after arriving for his shift from the frustrated customer. “I’m busy. I’m in a meeting,” he advised. A 2nd call was later placed that eventually got through to Adam. The particulars and distinctly unfunny comedy of errors was discussed, how Walmart had mishandled the purchase and appeared to routinely place purchased items left behind back onto the store’s retail shelves rather than in a secured place until the owner could retrieve them. “After all, you did say this wasn’t your 1st rodeo,” reminded the irritated customer. “I’m going to publish a story about the incident,” the customer continued, “I’m an independent local reporter.”

“What?” exclaimed Adam. “I can’t discuss any of  this with you further since you’ve told me you’re with the media,” he protested. Adam wasn’t pressed to do so. He was informed of what the facts were and how they would be presented in the story. He was invited to comment before the story was published if he wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. He declined. But, he went on to say, “You can’t quote me. You didn’t tell me you were a reporter!”

“Sure I can,” he was advised. “No, you can’t. I’m going to contact my corporate office and legal department about this,” he bristled. “That’s fine. Would you like my contact info for them?” said the reporter, “I’ve already contacted the corporate office to report the pattern of errors in handling merchandise that no longer is the property of the store. I’m quite familiar with what I can print and who I can quote in a news article.”

“Have a nice day,” suggested Adam.

So, you have a nice day too–just remember, Walmart is a crap shoot should you forget to take your purchases with you. Selling an item twice is much more profitable than selling it only once. Any used car dealer will tell you that much. Usually, you get what you pay for in business, but that assumption may be premature in the case of Shelton’s Walmart.

A Florida woman spent the night in jail after a Broward County sheriff’s deputy accused her of committing a “felony” by audio recording their conversation during a simple traffic stop. Upon review, all charges against her were dropped — but now the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) is facing a lawsuit. Brandy Burning, a single mom, was pulled over by BSO Lt. William O’Brien for driving in an HOV lane. After some back-and-forth about her traffic violation, Burning informed the officer that she was recording their conversation.

“Oh, I forgot to tell you I was recording our conversation,” Burning is heard saying in the audio.

“I’m sorry?” O’Brien responds.

“I have to tell you, I forgot to tell you I was recording,” she repeats.

It was at this point that O’Brien accused her of committing a “felony” and demanded the cellphone. He also told her he knows the law better than she does.

“You are committing a felony. Hand me the phone,” O’Brien orders.

“No, I am not,” the defiant woman says in the audio. “I am not giving up my phone.”

As Washington Post opinion blogger Radley Balko correctly notes, “[In] every state in America, you are well within your rights to record an on-duty police officer.”

“There are a few limited exceptions, such as if while recording you physically interfere with an officer trying to perform his duties. But as long as you aren’t in the way, you’re protected by the First Amendment,” he writes.

After allegedly climbing into the car and attempting to take the phone forcefully, O’Brien removed Burning and arrested her. The mom can be heard screaming on the tape, demanding the officer take his hands off of her.

“Get off of me! You are breaking the law!” she yelled. “I am not getting out of my car. Get off of me!”

by Carlos Miller of PINAC

Broward County, FL — Less than a month after Broward Sheriff’s attorney and political spin doctor Ron Gunzburger sat on a panel with me claiming his department is fully trained to respect the rights of citizens to record in public – berating me for having even suspected otherwise – more evidence has emerged confirming he is pretty much full of it.

The latest incident emerged Tuesday involving a commanding officer with more than three decades of experience as well as a history of larceny, arresting a woman for audio recording a traffic stop, forcing his way into her car to grab her phone, then pulling her out and dragging her on the gravel, injuring her in several places as another deputy stood by with his gun drawn.

All while yelling at her that she was committing a felony, telling her, “I know the law better than you.”

But it was Lt. William “Bill” O’Brien that was committing a felony by unlawfully entering her car and detaining her against her will, not that he will ever face those charges.

In fact, if it wasn’t for his undeserved badge, she would have had every right under Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force to kill him considering he had forced his way into her car and violently dragged her out, so we once again come to the realization that cops are above the law. [Washington State law provides for citizens to defend themselves against unlawful force, even by cops.]

How else can you explain that after all the hoopla O’Brien made about Brandy Berning committing a felony, he ended up charging her only with misdemeanor resisting arrest aka contempt of cop, which was enough for her to spend the night in jail, a charge that was quickly dropped?

“I know the law better than you.”

Those words are especially infuriating to me because those are the same words a clueless Metrorail security guard used before he attacked me for taking photos on a train platform! Those are the same words I’ve heard cops say in several Youtube videos where they are trying to intimidate the person from recording, so it’s probably something they are training them to do.

The truth is, O’Brien just wanted to teach Berning a lesson. No different than officer Rojas of the NYPD who is making national headlines this week for unlawfully arresting a man video recording him in a subway station.

The O’Brien incident took place in March of last year, four months before the Broward Sheriff’s Office  introduced its over-hyped and under-read training bulletin, which Gunzburger has been touting as proof his agency is leading the way in respecting the rights of citizens to record.

Carlos Miller and Broward Sheriff’s Attorney Ron Gunzburger

But PINAC correspondent Jeff Gray proved that wrong less than 24 hours after the panel when he tried to record a jail from a public sidewalk and was informed that he was ‘breaking the law’.

While the Broward Sheriff’s Office is not publicly speaking about the Berning incident, we can imagine that Gunzburger’s spin on this would be that it took place before the training bulletin was issued, therefore giving O’Brien the excuse that he had no clue citizens had the right to record him in public.

But, contrary to the headline in the training bulletin that describes this right as “evolving law,” giving the impression that the right for citizens to records cops was recently granted to us, numerous court cases have long established it is protected by the First Amendment, including in the year 2000 by Smith vs Cumming from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which includes Florida, that states the following:

As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.

So there is no excuse for O’Brien, who has been a cop since 1975, to not know this. After all, as they always tell us, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But try telling that to Broward Sheriff Scott Israel who was accused of violating state ethics laws when he underpaid a five-day luxury yacht cruise to the Bahamas for his family courtesy of a donor.

The state ethics committee found probable cause that he violated the law but they let him slide anyway, citing his “lack of experience” in office and “reliance of advice from counsel” as a legitimate reason not to criminally charge him.

In other words, the sheriff, who never shuts up about this 30 years experience as a law enforcement officer, was relying on advice from Gunzburger, who never shuts up about that damn training bulletin.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel

According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel:

Israel told state officials that he relied on the advice of Gunzburger, the longtime general counsel for the property appraiser’s office at the time, who is the son of County Commissioner Sue Gunzburger.

Gunzburger advised the sheriff that the cruise could be valued at $1,500 based on Carnival’s rates. Gunzburger said state law directs officials to value transportation at the rate of a “comparable commercial conveyance.”

He also advised the sheriff that the party aboard the yacht wasn’t worth more than $100 and didn’t have to be reported.

But Guillemette said Israel accepted the advice even though it didn’t “smack of rationality,” and he is “still responsible for his actions.”

She told the board that she believed “Mr. Israel attempted to turn a blind eye to the actual cost in order to evade reporting it … that he had taken these rather large gifts on two separate occasions from one particular donor.”

The seven commission members — an eighth recused herself because of a conflict of interest —struggled to come to a decision in a private session Friday, the recording of which is now public record. Some members agonized over marring the sheriff’s record, but others were disturbed by the low amount he paid for the yacht trip.

So with leadership like that, it’s no wonder O’Brien believed he was above the law when he arrested Berning last year for recording him after he pulled her over for driving in the car pool lane during rush hour by herself.

This is a cop who, according to records, left his job as a Pompano Beach police officer in 1996 for “misconduct” after he came under investigation for larceny, only to rejoin the police department less than three months later in what the department described as a “transfer within agency (no break in service).”

Meanwhile, countless citizens have lost their jobs after being unlawfully arrested, never getting a chance to redeem themselves to their employers after they are cleared of the charges.

This could have easily happened to Berning who was jailed overnight, unexpectedly disrupting her life because she wanted to document her exchange with O’Brien.

She is in the process of filing a lawsuit, so we should have more details about how it affected her in the coming weeks. But even if she does win her case, O’Brien will not be affected in the least bit because cops are rarely held personally liable for actions they commit while on duty.

In 2011, Broward Sheriff’s deputy Paul Pletcher was off-duty when he confronted a woman in a road rage incident, ordering her passenger to hand over his phone because he was recording the altercation. Pletcher then allegedly drove off with the phone before tossing it in a nearby parking lot.

After a seven month investigation, he was criminally charged with several felonies, but even then, it took another several months to actually fire him. And when he finally went to trial last month, a mistrial was declared because the judge had a personal emergency.

So the wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slow when it comes to disciplining one of their own, which is why we must record all interactions with police because the camera is the only protection we have against these so-called protectors.

It’s especially important when dealing with Broward sheriff’s deputies who are in dire need of a four-week training course on the right to record, not just a four-page training bulletin that doesn’t even inform deputies they do not have the right to confiscate cameras as evidence without a court order.

The truth is, they don’t know the law better than us. Not when it comes to this issue. So it’s up to us to teach them the law because they are under the impression they can make it up as they go along.

UPDATE: The entire conversation between O’Neil and Berning was posted in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

Below is the full video from last months’ Right to Record panel that was sponsored by the National Press Photographers Association. The audio is horrible but that is a result of Taylor Hardy, who was manning the cameras, focusing his efforts on live streaming the event to more than 300 viewers through his iPad, which was a job onto itself.

Next time, we’ll be better prepared.

District Attorney Kenneth Thompson can prosecute Officer Rojas under NYS Penal Law section 210.10, just based on the report filed and the video. Section 210.10 is a class E Felony. Rojas must be terminated if found guilty.

Contact:
Kings County District Attorney’s Office
350 Jay St. Brooklyn, New York 11201-2908
Ask for: ADA Charles Guria
718.250.2600 / 718-250-2000

ADA Charles Guria runs the Rackets Division.

The Rackets Division consists of multiple bureaus that share resources and information in order to successfully investigate and prosecute serious and complex crimes in the areas of organized crime, criminal misconduct by public officials and police officers, gang-related activity, major frauds, arson, narcotics and tax revenue crimes.

The bureaus in the Rackets Division are: Civil Rights and Police Integrity Bureau, Major Frauds and Arson Bureau, Money Laundering and Revenue Crimes Bureau, Organized Crime Bureau and Political Corruption Investigation Bureau.

—————————————-­—————————————-­———
If you like to read “Legal Fictions” you should read the criminal complaint filed against me in this matter by NYPD Officer Rojas and the Kings County District Attorney, Kenneth Thompson. It’s not very creative, but it is very interesting.

Recording While Black and Contempt of Cop are not crimes just yet, but I think NYC Politicians are working on it, because Photography Is Not A Crime unless you are photography the Cops of course.

Yet the Department of Justice sees no reason to intervene.

Visit http://themarginalzone.wordpress.com for updates on this case and others.

Here is what Police Officer Efrain Rojas Shield No. 23404, says happened:

Deponent states that, at the above time and place, inside of a Transit Station on the 3 and 4 platform train, which was public, deponent was issuing a lawful summons to an individual and that deponent observed defendant in very close proximity to the deponent and deponent’s partner while issuing the summons and that deponent continued to repeatedly ask defendant to step back and that defendant repeatedly refused to do so.

Deponent further requested the defendant to leave said train station and defendant refused to do so, deponent escorted defendant out the above mentioned location and informed defendant that defendant can not come back into said station, defendant continued to film deponent and closely follow deponent back into said train station.

Deponent further states that, at the above time and place, defendant did resist a lawful arrest by crossing defendants’ arm across defendant’s chest while deponent attempted to place defendant in handcuffs.

by Carlos Miller (2-15-14)

NY, NY — A New York City cop beat up and arrested a man for video recording him inside a subway station from 30 feet away Saturday night, walking up to him and getting in his face all while claiming the man was invading his personal space.

Officer Rojas, shield number 23404, then deleted the video, never mentioning the camera once in his arrest report, claiming the man had physically interfered with another arrest he was making.

But after spending 24 hours in jail, Shawn Randall Thomas managed to recover the deleted footage, proving that Rojas is not only a liar, but a bullying thug as well.

Thomas also obtained footage from another man who had recorded Rojas with his knees on Thomas’ back as he lay face down on the sidewalk just outside the sub station, seconds after Rojas had bashed his face into the pavement, busting his lip.

The injury was so bad that they had to transport him to the hospital twice during his 24-hour incarceration where doctors described him as a victim of assault.

“I was bleeding profusely,” Thomas said during an interview with Photography is Not a Crime Monday night.

“I was having really bad head pains while in jail, so they took me back to the hospital the following morning.”

The incident began when Thomas was video recording another NYPD cop named Dai, who didn’t mind being recorded, detaining a man for jumping the turnstile. The video runs for more than four minutes before Rojas arrives on the scene. Four long minutes of uneventful footage but proving that everything was under control until Rojas arrived.

At 5:00 into the video, Rojas pulls out his iPhone and begins recording Thomas, walking up to him and sticking the phone directly in front of Thomas’ lens, doing this wordlessly for more than 30 seconds.

“You’re violating my personal space,” Thomas tells him.

“You’re violating my personal space too,” Rojas responds.

“What’s your name and shield number?” Thomas asks.

“What’s your name?”

The situation remains tense for several minutes with Rojas not backing down, threatening to arrest him while Thomas stands up for his rights, telling him to “back the fuck off.”

Rojas tells him, “this is my station” before ordering him out of the train station. He then grabs his arm, twisting it behind him and opening the camera’s battery compartment, removing the batteries and pocketing them.

After walking up two flights of stairs and emerging onto the street above, Rojas told him to leave, knowing that Thomas would no longer be able to record without batteries.

But Thomas pulled out his Blackberry and attempted to turn it on to document how he had just been kicked out for video recording.

“He then knocked the phone out of my hand and slams me to the ground,” Thomas said. “Then he grabbed the back of my head and slammed it into the pavement.”

Thomas began yelling for bystanders to record, which prompted at least one man to record Rojas with his knees on Thomas’ back.

By the time Thomas had been released from jail, the man had tracked him down through Facebook and had sent him the video.

Thomas also downloaded a free program called Recuva, which allowed him to recover the deleted footage in minutes.

But he is still facing charges of resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing government, which should be enough to criminally charge Rojas considering another NYPD cop was charged with falsifying records last year in the arrest of a New York Times photographer.

Thomas was arrested last year for video recording in front of an NYPD station, but those charges were dismissed.

Rojas works out of Transit Bureau District 32, which can be reached at (718) 221-6600. Ask for  Deputy Inspector Michael A. Davidson, who heads that bureau.

Or better yet, contact newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to see where he stands on the issue as he provides numerous ways to reach out to him.

By phone, call 311 if you’re in New York City or 212-NEW-YORK from outside the five boroughs.

UPDATE: Thomas has since obtained the arrest report where Rojas accused him of being in “close proximity” to them as they tried to issue another man a summons. He also claimed that they ordered him numerous times to leave the station but he refused. And he topped it all off by claiming that he had to physically escort Thomas out of the station, only for him to follow him back inside with a camera.

At first, Thomas was under the impression that Rojas had not mentioned the camera but he did slip in the word “film” when accusing Thomas of returning to the scene after being escorted out.

The arrest report should be enough to terminate Rojas if not criminally charge him. Either way, he’ll have enough time on his hands to pursue a career in fiction writing considering he seems to have a talent for it.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI — A man was forced to the concrete at gunpoint, handcuffed, and held with a pistol aimed at his back by an officer who didn’t approve of him exercising his right to bear arms.

Johann Deffert, 28, was simply walking down the street — breaking no laws — while wearing a holstered pistol on his waistband.

Such an act is perfectly legal in the state of Michigan. Yet when the streets are patrolled by overzealous, uninformed law enforcers, exercising rights can be a serious hazard to one’s health.

Grand Rapids police officer William Moe saw Deffert walking down the sidewalk. “It does look like he’s got a handgun on,” Moe told a dispatcher. Moe reacted to him like as if he had just robbed a bank. Moe exited his vehicle with his pistol trained on Deffert, barking orders and putting lives at risk.

“On the ground!! On the ground!! Put your hands on top of your head!”

“He just unloaded his gun in rapid fire. One right after the other, in succession. There wasn’t any hesitation.”

Jerry Waller & Grandson

Fort Worth, TX — An elderly man was slain in his own garage because police “inadvertently began searching” the wrong address while investigating a burglary call.  Spotting a man who appeared “standoffish” in his own garage, police opened fire, killing a 72-year-old grandfather.  After months of investigation, the officer has been cleared and is back on the streets.

In the earliest hour of May 28th, 2013, Jerry Waller was awoken after midnight to the sound of his neighbor’s home burglar alarm. Doing the neighborly thing, Mr. Waller got out of bed to check on the family next door. He took a pistol with him as his wife stayed behind.

Fort Worth Police were dispatched and arrived at the scene at 12:58 a.m.  Only the officers didn’t go to the address of the alarm.   They “inadvertently began searching” the property of Jerry and Kathy Waller at 404 Havenwood — across the road from the automated burglary alert.

Jerry & Kathy Waller had been married 46 years.

Officers B.B. Hanlon and R.A. “Alex” Hoeppner walked onto the Wallers’ property and approached the darkened house with their flashlights lit.  As Officer Hoeppner neared the residence, he spotted Mr. Waller, who was cautiously surveying the scene from inside his garage.

A confrontation ensued between the homeowner and the intruders carrying guns and flashlights.  Unfortunately only one side survived to tell their version of the events.

The undisputed fact is that Waller was shot 7 times in his own garage.

Officer Hoepnner claims that when he spotted Mr. Waller, he identified himself and commanded the homeowner to drop his gun.  According to the police narrative, Waller was hesitant to comply with commands of the strangers.  After momentarily setting his gun down, Waller allegedly “freaked out” and “lost it” and picked the gun back up and assumed a “ready” stance, aiming his pistol at police officers.  Hoepnner opened fire.

The senior citizen was struck multiple times and was pronounced dead at the scene.  His slanted driveway was stained with a trail of his blood and his distraught wife had to be taken to the hospital for emotional distress.

The loss was devastating to the community.  “They are just a nice retired couple, that loved working in their yard, having family over, and grandkids,” said Becky Haskin, a neighbor who knew the Wallers.

“I think he panicked,” Haskin said to the Star-Telegram. “He just unloaded his gun in rapid fire. That’s what I heard. It woke me up. I thought it was in my back yard — just rapid fire, one right after the other, in succession. There wasn’t any hesitation.”

The burglary alert across the street was a false alarm.

“Trigger Happy”

The department did not offer many details of the incident for some time, but insisted that “officers felt threatened.”

As the department investigated itself for wrongdoing, the Waller family expressed displeasure with what they considered deliberate “misrepresenting” of details of the killing by the department.  They felt so uneasy with the media coverage that they felt compelled to issue a public statement demanding a full investigation.   The statement read, in part:

We were deeply troubled by the police department misrepresenting details of the incident in their interviews with the media.  We would ask that the police refrain from providing details to the media until a thorough investigation has been completed, preferably by an independent body.

Kathy Waller, widow

His widow, Kathy Waller, said she was “disgusted” by the police.  “Married 46 years, and then somebody gets a little trigger-happy and away they go,” she told WFAA.  ”I miss him dearly.”

“My father never stepped outside of his garage,” said son Chris Waller. “He was shot multiple times in the chest only a few steps away from the doorway to his kitchen.”

According to the autopsy report, Waller suffered three bullets to the chest, a shot to the abdomen, a shot to the hand, and two grazing wounds to his wrist and forearm.

Details were slow to emerge, but a report finally admitted that the police went to the wrong address because of “poor lighting.”

The two officers were patrolling the streets again in under two months, without discipline.

Hoeppner gave the following statements:

“…the whole entire time I’m giving commands, “Drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun.” “And he’s not dropping it and he had this attitude towards us that…it was almost an attitude of, you can’t tell me to drop my gun.” “You know what I mean?” “Like who are you to telling me to, you know what I mean.” “He kind of had an attitude kind of very hostile towards us…”

“I’m pretty sure I told you this; but I wanna reiterate that he…umm, his…his attitude towards us was very malicious.” “It…it was not, pro-police at all.” “ He did not seem happy that, that we were there.”

…if someone who…who…who…is….you get someone out there who would follow the gun laws; and…and that understands that a police officer is telling you this, that you’re not gonna sit there and hold the gun  still; cause….I mean like…it’s almost as if he was challenging me.” “And the fact…the reason I say that is I mean, his….the way he stood; I mean…I mean his comments as in, ‘why’…” “ You know like, what…what person in their right man…mind would ask a peace officer…a, a law enforcement officer…’why’ …when he tells you and give you verbal commands that we’re being serious…, drop the gun, you know. Your law abiding citizen is not going to tell… going to ask you, why.”

The way he talks to me is a very stand-off attitude.” “ You know…you know when he say, get…get the light outta my eyes, it wasn’t please sir; get the light outta my eyes.” “Hey, can you please get the light outta my eyes.” “It was, get the light outta my eyes!” “You know, it was real standoff, like…you know…”

Now that I think back on it and you know, had all this time to think on it. I think his intentions as soon as he walked out that door and saw me and he didn’t want to put the gun down, I firmly believe that he was trying to find a point and time where…when…when he could shoot me at when…when…when it was the most beneficial time for him to shoot me.”

After hearing Officer Hoeppner’s partner swear under oath that Mr. Waller pointed his gun, a Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict the rookie cop.  Both officers had been with the department for under one year.

The most recent report states that that Waller told Hoeppner to “get that light out of my eyes,” drawing questions about whether the victim could see who the intruders were through the blinding beam of light.

The police narrative claims that Waller did eventually put his gun on top of a car, but he then “scrambled” to pick it back up.  Next, allegedly, Waller “swung the handgun in the direction of Officer Hoeppner,” prompting the rapid fire response.

Diagram of Jerry Waller’s garage. (Source: Fort Worth Police)

The report admits that the police did not activate their vehicle emergency lights, nor did they use their sirens.  They also did not activate their lapel microphones.  Why?

Jerry Waller’s death may never be fully understood, but the tragedy of the situation remains.

Was the situation preventable?  Could officers have avoided this situation by utilizing their lights and sirens?  Did the officers shoot irresponsibly after getting spooked by a strange man?  Did Mr. Waller think he was confronting burglars?

Fort Worth Police Department
Phone:  (817) 335-4222
Email:  Contact Us
Facebook:  FWPD

Unprovoked: Courtroom video shows Denver sheriff’s deputy attacking shackled inmate

Of course, the judge just sits there and says nary a word to her goons.

DENVER, CO — Denver’s safety department waited a year to discipline a sheriff’s deputy for grabbing a man who was appearing before a judge in a Denver County courtroom and slamming him into a wall.

by Susan Greene (2-13-14)

Susan Greene

Denver, CO — The deputy, Brady Lovingier, is the son of Bill Lovingier, who headed the sheriff’s department from 2006 to 2010. The safety department disciplinary report on the incident found “no legitimate reason” for Lovingier to attack inmate Anthony Waller in Judge Doris Burd’s courtroom.

The judge had a full view of the September 11, 2012, assault and filed an excessive force grievance against Lovingier. But that didn’t speed up the investigation by a department that long has been criticized for downplaying – and, in some cases, ignoring – abuse by its officers.

A formal response didn’t come until late September 2013, when the city suspended Lovingier for 30 days for the kind of assault that would have seen a civilian arrested, convicted and incarcerated in Denver.

“If he had killed me, would he have gotten 30 days?” Waller said in a statement to The Independent. “I was defenseless. I was addressing the judge, exercising my constitutional rights, and this is what I get? A savage beating?”

Waller was taken into custody on suspicion of assaulting a woman in an east Colfax motel.

Video and audiotapes obtained by The Independent show that deputies had shackled Waller in handcuffs, leg irons, a belly chain and black box — the highest level of restraint short of locking someone into a wheelchair — before escorting him into the courtroom.

During the court proceeding, known as a “first advisement,” Judge Burd explained why Waller was being held, advised him of his rights and outlined a schedule for legal procedures. Waller stood quiet at the podium while the judge spoke for about five minutes. There were no raised voices in the nearly empty courtroom. The four deputies in the room seemed relaxed as Waller stood listening to the judge. One even checked his cell phone.

After Judge Burd finished her advisement, Waller spoke. “Ah, yes, ma’am, I’d like to object first,” he told her. “If I’m under investigation, I thought the investigation came first and then the arrest came.”

Just as the judge started answering Waller’s objection — explaining that the city had the authority to hold Waller for three days before arresting him — Lovingier suddenly took hold of Waller from behind by the belly chain. Waller turned his head to look at Lovingier, who then yanked Waller violently by the chain, spun him around and slammed him into a large glass window. Waller collapsed onto the ground.

“Get on your feet,” Lovingier yelled. “Don’t turn on me. Get on your feet. Get on your feet.”

Waller, his head injured, groaned, “Oh, man, oh.”

“Get on your feet,” Lovingier repeated.

Deputies dragged Waller from the courtroom.

After some silence, Judge Burd finally spoke. “Oh, lah, lah,” she said.

Then, at least for the time captured on tape, she and her clerk went on with their work as if nothing had happened. Burd later filed the grievance against Lovingier in a move that’s rare for a judge.

Burd used the term “heavy duty” when later asked by internal affairs investigators to describe the attack. Her clerk described it as “a bit excessive.”

Judge Burd did not return a phone call asking for reaction to the fact that it took more than a year for safety officials to respond to her grievance. The probe resulted in a finding of “misconduct” — specifically “neglect of duty,” “carelessness in performance of duties and responsibilities” and “failure to observe the written departmental or agency regulations.” Lovingier plans on February 20 to appeal his 30-day suspension to the city’s Career Service Authority.

Waller sees the month-long suspension as a mere slap on the wrist. He calls Lovingier’s appeal of the disciplinary action a ”degradation to the sheriff’s department.”

“Every deputy should be offended due to the lack of professionalism exhibited by Deputy Lovingier. Anyone who looks at that tape can see what happened.”

Prior to his attack, Waller had served 19 years in prison for a sexual assault conviction about which he maintains his innocence. Seventeen months after Lovingier assaulted him, he is still in Denver jail awaiting trial on felony charges of kidnapping and assault related to the motel beating. Despite Waller’s rap sheet, safety department brass concluded in the Lovingier discipline report that “the record indicates… inmate Waller posed no threat to [Lovingier] or anyone else,”

City officials refused comment on the case, citing a concern for “potentially influenc(ing) the outcome” of Lovingier’s disciplinary appeal.

The deputy had worked for more than 11 years in the department his father used to run.

Documents obtained by The Independent detail Lovingier twisting the facts of the incident.

In a statement to police the day of the attack, this was his version of events:

“As we hit the glass Waller dropped his weight and he went to the floor. Since I already had his belly chain I eased him to the floor.”

His long series of statements to internal affairs investigators were dismissed as “unreasonable” and not factual. (Find examples in the excerpts posted here.)

In another interview, after watching a video of the assault, Lovingier asserted that “it appeared Mr. Waller tripped up on his leg irons when I turned him to regain control and leave the courtroom… It is also apparent to me that the trip accelerated our momentum toward the glass, which is why we got there so fast and appeared harder than I would have anticipated.”

Denver’s safety department has had seven managers in four years. It has faced heavy criticism after a spate of jail incidents, including the 2010 death of Marvin Booker after several sheriff’s deputies forcefully restrained him. The city has incarcerated deaf inmates without offering sign language interpreters. And it has a record of jailing innocent people in cases of mistaken identity.

In December, the official tasked with watchdogging Denver’s safety agencies released a 78-page study showing the sheriff’s department ignores incidents of staff misconduct. The report by Independent Safety Monitor Nicholas Mitchell found that the city:

– Failed to investigate serious misconduct, including “inappropriate force, non-consensual sexual touching and biased behavior by deputies.”

– Ignored a series of grievances against a small group of rogue deputies at the county jail. Four deputies in a force of more than 700 officers were the subjects of 16 percent of all inmate complaints.

– And hindered inmates’ ability to lodge grievances. This was especially a problem for Latino inmates for whom there were no grievance forms in Spanish.

Mitchell wouldn’t comment on the Lovingier case, nor on the year it took safety officials to investigate it.

Safety department spokeswoman Daelene Mix wrote The Independent that, “since the Lovingier case, the Denver Sheriff’s Department has reformed its disciplinary process to reduce major delays.

“Specifically, the Internal Affairs Bureau added two investigators to its staff to ensure investigations are conducted in a timely and efficient manner.”

Mix also noted that the department has adopted some of Mitchell’s recommendations regarding its grievance procedures.

Ken Padilla, Waller’s civil attorney, said the year-long lag time to investigate the attack and Lovingier’s suspension of only 30 days show “gross deep-seated endemic issues in the Denver Sheriff’s Department and the Denver Manager of Safety Office that the City and County of Denver has failed to address or correct.” Padilla is particularly concerned about a part of the audiotape when he said Lovingier, who is white, refers to Waller as “boy.”

“If a deputy sheriff thinks he can get away with viciously attacking a middle-aged Black man and calling him ‘a boy’ appearing in court, you can only imagine what happens to men and women in custody in the confines of the Denver city and county jails,” Padilla said.

Former Denver Safety Manger Fidel Butch Montoya said the video “is a shocking demonstration of a sheriff’s deputy taking advantage of his authority.” As someone who has meted out discipline in several misconduct cases, Montoya said a year is “an excessive time to make a determination of the video and audio elements of the case.”

Carole Oyler, a longtime activist who watchdogs police issues in Denver, points out that most civilians who attack someone in the way Lovingier hauled off on Waller “would not just have been suspended from their jobs, but also fired and (had) criminal charges filed.”

“There’s something way, way wrong with Denver’s disciplinary system,” she said. “Apparently members of the safety department are exempt from the laws that apply to the rest of us.”

Lovingier Report3

5 Oklahoma police officers beat unarmed man to death outside movie theater in front of his wife & daughter

The Rodriguez family

MOORE, Oklahoma – Three Moore Police officers were put on administrative leave while detectives investigate an in-custody death from overnight. The family of the man who died said police beat him badly and they recorded it with a cell phone camera.

Nair Rodriguez and her daughter Lunahi told News 9 they got into an argument at the Warren Theater around midnight. Nair said she slapped her daughter then stormed away. Her husband, Luis, chased after her. That was when the family said officers confronted Luis Rodriguez and asked to see his identification.

According to Lunahi and Nair, he tried to bypass the officers to stop his wife from driving off because she was so angry. They said officers took him down and it escalated.

Lunahi Rodriguez said that five officers beat her father to death right in front of her, in the parking lot of the movie theater.

“When they flipped him over you could see all the blood on his face, it was, he was disfigured, you couldn’t recognize him.”

By the time it was all over, Nair Rodriguez said that she knew her husband was dead.

“I saw him. His [motionless] body when people carry it to the stretcher,” she explained. “I knew that he was dead.”

Nair says her husband was only trying to defuse the fight she was having with her daughter. She said when police asked her about it she told them what happened.

“I told them I hit her and he was just trying to reach me. Why didn’t they arrest me?”

Lunahi added, “My mom was taking a video and asking, ‘What are they doing this for? Why?’ And they didn’t give really an explanation.”

Rodriguez told News 9 that police took her phone with the recording on it. Another family member provided News 9 with an audio recording she said was taken when that happened. The family hoped Luis would pull through, so they waited for news at the hospital.

“Two hours passed. They finally called her up to say, ‘Oh you could see him,’ but it turned out it was a lie. They moved his body elsewhere,” said Lunahi.

The family told News 9 they would hire an attorney.

by Carlos Miller of PINAC

Oklahoma law enforcement officers beat a man to death before confiscating his wife’s cell phone after she video recorded the incident, leaving the key piece of evidence in the hands of the killers.

Police said they needed the phone as “evidence” but the United States Department of Justice has made it very clear that police can only seize a camera without a warrant if they believe the camera contains evidence of a crime and if they believe this evidence would be destroyed if they don’t act fast to obtain it.

In this case, the phone likely contains evidence of a crime committed by police which would increase the chances of it getting destroyed now that it is in their hands.

The incident took place Saturday night outside a movie theater in Moore when a woman got into an argument with her daughter and slapped her before storming off.

The woman’s husband and father of the girl, Luis Rodriguez, ran after his wife in an attempt to restore harmony to the family, but a group of cops intervened and demanded his identification.

Police, of course, claim he started fighting with them, which is why they had to kill him.

But family members say he was only trying to sidestep them to prevent his wife from driving off.

According to News9:

Lunahi Rodriguez said that five officers beat her father to death right in front of her, in the parking lot of the movie theater.

“When they flipped him over you could see all the blood on his face, it was, he was disfigured, you couldn’t recognize him.”

By the time it was all over, Nair Rodriguez said that she knew her husband was dead.

“I saw him. His [motionless] body when people carry it to the stretcher,” she explained. “I knew that he was dead.”

Nair says her husband was only trying to defuse the fight she was having with her daughter. She said when police asked her about it she told them what happened.

“I told them I hit her and he was just trying to reach me. Why didn’t they arrest me?”

Lunahi added, “My mom was taking a video and asking, ‘What are they doing this for? Why?’ And they didn’t give really an explanation.”

News9 said that another family member provided them with an audio clip of the incident but it doesn’t appear that they have posted it.

The incident involved three Moore police officers, including one who was off-duty, as well as two off-duty game wardens.

Last year, Kern County sheriff’s deputies confiscated phones after killing a man as well, which led to an FBI investigation.

In 2012, Miami-Dade cops entered a home without a warrant and confiscated a phone from a girl after killing her father in the driveway.

1n 2011, Miami Beach police began confiscating phones after killing an unarmed man inside a car, shooting hundreds of bullets and striking four innocent bystanders, which lead to a policy change regarding the right for citizens to record (which they seem to be respecting for the most part).

The Free Thought Project has provided a list of apps that allow you to live stream video, ensuring your video survives even if they do confiscate your phone.

Call Moore Police Chief Jerry Stillings at (405) 793-5138.

Chief Jerry Stillings