The Politics of Truth

In 2007, several incidents of police misconduct, including allegations that officers who lied were never punished, brought public outrage to a head in Seattle and prompted city officials to create 2 review boards to look into the Seattle Police Department's policies and methods of dealing with allegations of misconduct and disciplinary actions against officers.

The results of those efforts were touted and the city proudly declared that they implemented all of the recommended reforms suggested by those reviews in 2008... though, in truth, they really didn't.

The problem was that Washington State requires Seattle to negotiate all disciplinary policies with the police officer's union, which is about the same thing as if they were to require each school to negotiate rules and discipline with their students or requiring jails to negotiate terms of discipline with their inmates.

So, 11 of the recommended reforms had to be approved during contract negotiations between the city and the union. After initially suggesting that they would not negotiate any changes to disciplinary policy, the union changed tact and said that they would sell some of the reform items, after modifications, in exchange for more pay. So, the city and union picked and chose which reforms the city could afford to pay off the union to accept.

One of those reforms that was altered and then bought involved a proposed policy that would force the chief to fire any officer who was dishonest during the internal investigation process... The union said that was unacceptable unless the city added that the finding of dishonesty could only be used if the city established an INTENT to mislead with clear and convincing PROOF. The city relented and bought that modified reform, as worded below:

In the case of an officer receiving a sustained complaint involving dishonesty in the course of the officer's official duties or relating to the administration of justice, a presumption of termination shall apply. For purposes of this presumption of termination the Department must prove dishonesty by clear and convincing evidence. Dishonesty is defined as intentionally providing false information, which the officer knows to be false, or intentionally providing incomplete responses to specific questions, regarding facts that are material to the investigation. Specific questions do not include general or 'catch-all' questions. For purposes of this Section dishonesty means more than mere inaccuracy or faulty memory.

Fast forward to the present day and we find that the city bought and paid for a reform item that it can never enforce because, as the union bragged shortly after the contract was agreed upon, there is no real way to prove intent and that, so long as an officer is smart about it, all they have to do is say that any inconsistency found in testimony was a lapse of memory and all would be well.

Only now has the city realized their blunder as the union has overturned two rulings of dishonesty upon appeal which resulted in the rehiring of one officer who was fired on a finding of dishonesty involving a case of alleged brutality.

And now with a third case where the city attorney forced the police chief to change his planned disciplinary actions against another officer who was found to have been dishonest during his investigation into allegations of sexual harassment.

It's interesting that it's only just now that the city and the media are realizing that they didn't get all the reforms that they thought they paid for, even though I immediately noticed this problem shortly after the proposed contract was released in June of 2008, (here and here).

So, will the city keep telling citizens that they enacted all the reforms that were supposed to improve police accountability now? Will the press keep parroting the city's releases without doing research of their own to verify those mistaken claims?

Or will this new development cause people to reexamine the problems with police accountability in Seattle and Washington State as a whole and finally discover that the root of the problem cannot be solved at the local level because the problem is that the state is forcing cities to let their police officers dictate if, how, and why they can and can't be held accountable for their actions?

Keep watching to find out.

The Police Will Have Someone To Call... But What About The Rest Of Us?

 

News today is that the "SafeCallNow" bill, a bill seeking to establish a taxpayer funded program for officers to confidentially get counseling for stress-related problems, has made it's way out of the Washington state senate on a unanimous vote.

Not only will that bill, Senate bill 5131, establish a way for officers to confidentially get therapy for stress-related disorders like alcoholism, domestic violence, or anger management issues, it also gives off-duty officers a chance at more supplementary income as the hot-line it establishes for officers to call will be staffed by off-duty officers trained in crisis management.

I've mentioned this bill before when it was first proposed and in committee and I stated that I'm not really opposed to this program. After all, I think it has some hope of possibly reducing incidents of police brutality that are caused by officers who have difficulties controlling themselves due to their inabilities to properly deal with stress.

But... I still can't help but wonder, with all these great taxpayer funded programs to help traumatized cops, where are the state-funded programs that help people that they traumatized? Heck, where are the privately run or charity-based programs for victims of police misconduct?

None exist.

Victims of police misconduct have no hot-line, no support group, no advocate groups, no nothing... So, while the police have numerous, and free, options for them to turn to, their victims are just left with the pain and debt incurred by the irresponsible actions of those same police officers that get immunity from legal action, taxpayer sponsored support groups, hot-lines, charities, government assistance, and soon... complete confidentiality.

Heck, victims of police misconduct aren't even considered victims of crime that qualify for support from government sponsored crime victims support programs to help pay for medical bills and therapy stemming from that misconduct.

Sure, I'm not opposed to getting police officers who have difficulty coping with stress the help they need but, up to now, have often refused to seek. But, if we're paying to help stressed out officers, why aren't we also paying to help the people that they harm as well?

Resetting Expectations in the Malika Calhoun Case

The Vice of Injustice and Virtue of Justice
frescoes at the Arena Chapel in Padua by Giotto

The video (here) of King County Sheriff's Deputy Paul Schene assaulting 15-year-old Malika Calhoun has left many outraged. People all over the world are presuming that the deputy will be fired and even convicted of some criminal offense that will land him in prison for some period of time.

People also presume that Malika will win a civil suit and are wondering at the millions this deputy's apparent lack of self control will ultimately cost the cash-strapped King County government.

...even though none of these presumptions are even close to the reality of Seattle.

Let me be clear, there is a strong possibility that all of these presumptions are misplaced.

In fact, based on all the recent case history available, it is unlikely that the deputy will be found guilty of anything.

It is unlikely that the county would be able to fire him even if they tried.

And it's likely that Malika will, at absolute best case, stand to possibly win $250,000 in a civil case, if she doesn't settle for something half of that before hand... or lose the civil case she hopes to file... even though the criminal and civil defense for the deputy, which the county will pay for, will cost more than double anything Malika stands to win as compensation for what she suffered.

Why?

Let's address each aspect by looking at each presumption and compare them to similar recent events.

1.The deputy will be convicted and go to prison.

In Seattle it is rare that police officers are charged in similar cases. When they are, it is rarer still that they are convicted. Even then, when a conviction seems likely they plead down to lesser misdemeanors that carry deferred conviction deals that wipe their records after a year of good behavior, with no jail time.

Given that the deputy only faces a misdemeanor already, even if convicted it is exceedingly improbable that he would spend any time in jail even if this went to trial and he were convicted. For which, the county would be stuck with prosecution AND defense costs which may exceed $300.000 no matter what.

For an example, look at the last trial which was against King County deputy Brian Bonnar on federal civil rights violations based on accusations that he used excessive force when he allegedly beat a handcuffed woman after a car chase. While other officers testified against him, prosecutors still could not gain a conviction and the case cost the county nearly $400,000 in defense fees.

2. The deputy will be fired.

It is unlikely the deputy will be fired, especially if he is not convicted and, even if he is, a misdemeanor conviction is not enough on its own to fire him based on state laws and precedents that protect officers.

Let's be clear. Even if King County Sheriff Sue Rahr did fire him, the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) would likely force King County to reinstate him with back-pay and additional penalties as it's likely the deputy would be able to argue that other officers who have done the same, or worse, were not fired thus his firing would be discrimination.

It's likey he could do this because, in the past, King County has been very lax in how it disciplined officers ad that established a precedent for how future disciplinary actions are viewed by the police union-friendly PERC board. So, even if the county tried, it is unlikely that they could fire him.

For an example of this problem, just read the Conduct Unbecoming series in the Seattle PI.

3. Malika will win millions in a civil case.

First, it's important to understand that Seattle and King County use the same private lawfirm to defend themselves and their police officers from civil rights suits. While the officer's attorney, Anne Bremner, has drawn criticism for arguing that the video seen around the world doesn't tell the whole story. She, and her firm, are very ruthless in how they defend against police misconduct lawsuits.

They are so effective that they have only lost one case in a decade and that suit cost the city twice as much in legal fees than the award of $269,000 that was given to Romelle Bradford who was wrongfully arrested and punched by a Seattle Police officer.

There are a number of cases that they have settled, but those only net their victims half as much at best, such as the case of Maikoiyo Alley-Barnes who was savagely beaten and falsely arrested outside a nightclub in Seattle. His case settled for half as much as Bradford won, $185,000, even though Alley-Barnes clearly suffered far more serious injuries and both were entirely innocent of any crime.

(For a list of the latest known lawsuits to settle or win in Seattle, refer to here)

This case is somewhat different because Malika wasn't subjected to a false arrest. Therefore, if the case even makes it to trial and if it won, I think we would see an award of $100,000-$150,000, if that. If it settles, maybe $75,000.

Latest litigation outcomes against Seattle's PD

In any case, nothing close to a million.

Of course, I don't want this to be the way that it is. Nor do I think that it's right that the state of Washington and Seattle/King County put such a small price tag on our civil rights when they are violated.

But the harsh reality here is what it is and the sooner people understand what the realistic outcomes of this disturbing case are, while this case is still in the spotlight, the more hope we might have in improving the situation here in convincing people that changes are needed.

US Border Patrol- More Authority Than God On Earth?

A couple days ago I commented on the US Border Patrol's "internal checkpoints" that have been set up all over Washington state to not only catch suspected illegal immigrants but also allow agents to search US citizens as well. Since the end of February the US Border Patrol has operated 53 roadblocks in distances up to 100 miles AWAY from the border...

And Washington residents haven't been happy about it...

The border patrol recently addressed a number of residents who were upset about the internal checkpoints by suggesting they have been successful, citing that they have captured 81 suspected illegal immigrants and detained 19 people for alleged crimes out of 41,912 people stopped at those checkpoints, (which actually gives the stops an dismal .2% success rate.)

Well, that supposed success rate might be even less successful now after the US Attorney's office appears to agree with a local civil rights lawyer's assertion that the checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment safeguards against illegal search and seizure, which has caused them to drop charges in a number of cases that were brought by the US Border Patrol so far.

It appears as though this started after one of these "internal checkpoints" netted a medical marijuana patient, (medical use is legal in Washington) and detained him for petty possession charges.

The patient, a 55 year old veteran named Stephen Dixon, described his encounter with the border patrol to the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

"We were ordered out of the vehicle and they asked us to stand there," Dixon said. "Spread your legs, put your hands on the car. We were both patted down. Then we were asked to empty our pockets."

The agents had not found the marijuana yet when they ordered Dixon and his friend to sit on the curb. That was painful for Dixon, who has only one leg, a bad knee and a severely damaged spine.

When he finally stood after a few minutes to relieve his aching back, a Border Patrol officer threatened to put him in handcuffs, Dixon said.

The two men also complained when the Border Patrol dog was allowed to search inside their car without permission.

"I asked a couple of questions -- probably sarcastic -- like: 'Do you have more authority than God?' His answer was, 'Here on Earth we do.' "

"They said: 'You need to understand our authority' and gave me a pamphlet about the Patriot Act.'"

Dixon, upset about the charges, contacted several attorneys before getting a hold of a local, and outspoken, civil rights attorney named Paul Richmond who has given presentations and lectures around the state about civil rights issues and who has been active in taking on the US Border Patrol in another case of on-duty border patrol agents videotaping protests against the internal checkpoints and raids into the homes of US citizens.

Attorney Paul Richmond, (www.olympicpeninsulalaw.com and www.storytellinglawyer.com) told us that he convinced US Attorney Jeff Sullivan to drop the charges on the grounds that they were based on an illegal search and seizure and thus violated Dixon's 4th Amendment protections.

Richmond states that a letter sent to Sullivan pointed out a ruling by the US Supreme Court, in fact it's the same ruling that the border patrol cites as their justification for these "internal roadblocks", which actually limits their authority. In the decision, US v Martinez-Fuerte, the court established that the US Government "has never approved a checkpoint program who's primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing."

In addition to the charges being dropped against the medical marijuana patient Richmond represented, charges were dropped against 4 others on the same basis, which means at least 5 of the 19 arrests made at the checkpoints have been invalidated because they are deemed to be violations of the 4th Amendment.

Apparently, despite the US Border Patrol's professed beliefs, they do not have more authority than god... or the US Constitution for that matter.

The Governor Was Carded... So What?

The big news making the rounds today is about Washington state's Governor Christine Gregoire being turned away from an Olympia bar because she didn't have her ID with her when she, her compliment of political friends, and police escort went to have a few after an event.

Apparently, this news is so important that some MSM outlets have even posted the story that criticizes the hapless doorman multiple times on their sites, though generally just repeating each other verbatim with nothing new to add:

• The Olympian
  
• Associated Press
• Seattle Post Intelligencer
• Seattle Post Intelligencer Blog
• KING 5 News
• The Seattle Times
  

The stories all state that the governor was a good sport about the incident but the press makes a big stink about it and the stories end with the owner apologizing and saying that his part-time bouncer might need to have some additional training... Really?

Well, aside from trying to figure out why this event being given such wide ranging and prominent coverage when there are better things to cover, (such as the very pertinent complaints raised during the public meetings on the city's efforts to build it's own jail), it is curious that reporters haven't offered any real reasons why bouncers are so cautious that they'd even card your 90 year old grandma or prominent political figures and pat them down before entry.

If you want to know why, just look at stupid political stunts that use the police and justice system to make political points, like Seattle's "Operation Sobering Thought" and other opportunistic police harassment of nightclubs for instance. Such politically motivated stings that employed very questionable tactics and resulted in such shoddy arrests and episodes of harassment that they ended up embarrassing the city repeatedly but cost low-wage security staff countless hours of lost wages, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the lasting reminder of an an arrest on their record... all so the city could make a political point at their expense.

So, next time the press has a seizure over some poor doorman refusing to let someone in who doesn't have ID, think back to that last shameless "tough on crime" political stunt you supported. After all, why go through the punishment of being dragged through the justice system and being left with nothing but misery, EVEN IF THEY WIN, (none of the people arrested in that sting have been convicted by the way) just for the convenience of some politician, your bar's patrons, or even your butt-covering boss?

Paying A Painful Price For Wrongful Convictions

While reading details about yet another exoneration of an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted at The Agitator, I had a bit of a flashback. I was back at my fourth week in jail, where I was sent based on false charges and testimony, and I was laying in my bunk watching a movie on the television in a cell that held about 18 people. The cells we were held in were common rooms, just a series of bunks in a large area and no separate rooms or anything, so there was no privacy of any sort and only one television, so I tended to watch whatever was put on when I did bother to watch it. At the time things were looking pretty bleak, I was still stuck with a public defender who refused to listen when I insisted on my innocence and persisted in telling everyone I should plead guilty or face 18 years of prison for a crime I didn’t commit.

The movie on at this time was “The Hurricane” and if you haven’t ever seen the film it’s the story of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, a boxer who was wrongfully imprisoned for murder but eventually exonerated after 22 long years of struggle to prove his innocence. It’s a very powerful film and I highly suggest it, (as well as his book, "The 16th Round")… but at the time it was painful for me to watch because all I could do is wonder if this was going to be me, sitting in prison away from my family for something I never did. It was so painful, in fact, that I cried… something that isn’t really a good idea to do in front of a bunch of people sitting in a jail cell with you, some of which had just finished ruthlessly beating another prisoner and weren’t happy with me when I unsuccessfully tried to stop it and get a guard’s attention.

In the end, I was lucky, I wasn’t convicted… but how close I came to being convicted is something that will leave me changed forever because I never really realized just how easy it was to be wrongfully imprisoned… and if you knew what I knew, you would be frightened by how easy it really is. If it weren’t for the video tape that proved I didn’t do anything wrong, the police detective in charge of the case said, he had no doubt that I would be sent to prison for a very long time and the prosecutor agreed. I later learned that the venue where the tape was taken had tried to destroy it out of fear of a lawsuit over how they encouraged patrons to attack me that night, if they would have succeeded I wouldn’t be here typing today. I was lucky that it existed, that it wasn’t destroyed, and that the detective and prosecutor were ethical enough to reveal it’s existence and acknowledge my innocence… usually, it doesn’t work that way.

According to The Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

While the story that led me to remember that painful time in my life when just about all hope had left me and while it does give me hope for the many who languish behind bars who don’t belong there because of DNA testing… in most cases of eyewitness-based convictions, there is no DNA evidence available to clear anyone… just as there wouldn’t have been in my case as well. For them, it seems, there is little hope… and the cost in human terms is difficult to describe to someone who hasn’t lived it, and it is a cost too high for a society to morally sustain because the pain and suffering inflicted by wrongful accusations and convictions is beyond description, and a crime against the victims of such miscarriages of justice. If two months of being punished for something I never did is more painful than I can describe, I could hardly imagine nor describe what years of that kind of torture would do to a person.

The Innocence Project does give us some hope as it is working towards convincing state governments to implement reforms that would reduce the number of wrongful convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, few states are listening, including Washington state. Washington has a dismal record for implementing reforms to prevent and address wrongful convictions and exonerations. Hopefully, we can educate enough people about the perils of wrongful convictions and convince them that this is a problem that can affect them… much more easily than they know… much more easily than I ever knew too.

Washington State's Anti-Gang Crime Bill May Be Unconstitutional

Washington state's legislature is passing an "anti-gang bill" that includes provisions to fund police anti-gang taskforces, increased penalties for gang-related crimes, and supposedly deter recruitment by punishing adults who recruit teens into gangs.

However, the most troubling part of the anti-gang crime bill is how it defines a gang and the implementation of a state-wide gang watchlist database that will include the names of anyone a police officer accuses of belonging to a gang.

First, the bill defines a gang as an association of three or more individuals who share a symbol or name either formally or informally and who's members participate in a crime. Now, let's strip away the extraneous terms and, simply put, anyone who has an informal relationship to anyone who commits a crime and that informal relationship includes three or more people would be considered as a gang member. So, let's say a member of your bowling team commits a crime, that would mean that you could technically be labeled as a gang member.

Now, all of that aside, what burden of proof is involved in being labeled as a gang member? None.

Is there a way to make sure the names put in that database are really gang members? No. There is no oversight. There is no due-process. There is no judicial overview.

If a police officers decides to put your name in that database, it's there, you're profiled, and there is no mechanism available for you to appeal that designation and no way for you to clear your name in a court of law. This is the unconstitutional portion of the bill, allowing the executive to take punitive action on citizens without due process.

So, if your name gets placed on that database because, oh, let's say some officer decides he doesn't like your opinions about police accountability... then there is nothing you can do about it, no way for you to appeal, no judicial avenue available for you to plead not guilty... Nothing.

Guess what happens when you apply for a job and go through a background check. Well, you've been denied employment because your name was on an unconstitutional list of gang members and there is nothing you can do. (not to mention the absurdity of suggesting that denying alleged gang member employment will help induce gang members to go straight!)

This bill is, on the very face of it, illegal and unconstitutional. Without mechanisms of appeal and judicial oversight, it is a stark violation of civil rights that grants the executive branch unchecked power to harass citizens at will and without any burden of proof or consequence for abuse... and I guarantee that it will be abused.

...and I don't foresee anyone who will be willing to challenge it.