Fairfax County Police means police brutality

Where the hell is the US Justice Department? Why aren't they using RICO against these cops?

YouTube video shows alleged police brutality



A YouTube video raises questions about what one family said is an act of police brutality. The video was posted last week and depicts an incident between Vestal native Robert Leone and Pennsylvania State Police in Towanda. Now the family has filed a lawsuit. Our Melissa Kakareka sat down with the Leones to find out more.

VESTAL, N.Y. -- Robert Leone was driving his car on Route 6 in Bradford County on March 8, 2010 when Pennsylvania State Police in Towanda received a call from a woman saying she believed Leone had hit her car. Police pursued him, but Leone allegedly did not stop when they attempted to pull him over.

What happened next was recorded on camera and is the subject of a recent video posted on YouTube. Robert Leone's family said it depicts a brutal assault against their son.

"They preceded to kick him, to taser him and to beat him. You will hear them yell, scream, curse at him. The hood of the car is bouncing up and down, that's how severe they were beating him. The most chilling thing was him screaming for his life, the death scream, that stays with me to this day," said Joan Leone, Robert's mother.

Leone was convicted of four misdemeanors after the incident including resisting arrest and assault and is currently serving his sentence in Bradford County.

The Leones believe their son was unfairly prosecuted and contacted retired Pennsylvania policeman Larry Hohol, who put the video on YouTube last week with his commentary included.

Since then, it has gained almost 40,000 hits. A Facebook page supporting Robert also has more than 7,000 members.

"We are shocked that this took on so quickly, that there is so much support for our son and our family," said Joan Leone.

State Police said they cannot comment. The Leones have filed a civil lawsuit claiming police brutality.

"I thought I lived in a country that was complete justice for everyone and nobody should be treated the way my son was treated," said Frank Leone, Robert's father.

They said they want to expose the alleged injustice and bring Robert home from prison.






Modesto police await OK for body cameras




Within a couple of months, Modesto police officers expect to be wearing body cameras to record everything from traffic stops to arrests.

The City Council could approve a consent item this evening to spend $127,600 in grant funding to buy the video cameras from Arizona-based Taser International. That funding and $30,000 in Homeland Security money would enable the department to purchase 150 to 170 of the AXON Flex video recorders, Police Chief Mike Harden said.

If approved, the cameras should be delivered in 45 days, he said.

The small cameras, which usually are clipped to officers' shirt lapels, are designed to record police interactions with the public.

In early June 2011, the day after an independent investigator's report cleared the department of police brutality claims, Harden divulged that officers were field-testing the wearable cameras. Investigator Bob Aaronson of Palo Alto looked into the brutality charges after an anonymous letter claimed that department managers were ignoring complaints of excessive force.

Modesto police previously had spent $135,000 in grant funding on vehicle dashboard cameras, but the software and hardware didn't work well together and the manufacturer refunded the city's money.

The body cameras can provide key evidence to determine whether an officer used appropriate force in taking down a subject. Internal investigators reviewing the video and audio can glean evidence on whether the officer crossed the line or the subject made false claims about the incident.

In addition, officers activate the cameras to record statements from victims or gather evidence for use in criminal court cases.

Harden said body cameras are far more versatile than video equipment in patrol cars, which only captures what happens in front of the officer's vehicle. The body cameras record what happens as officers chase a subject in an alley or serve a search warrant inside a home.

Unique features

The department field-tested three camera systems starting a year ago. According to a report, the AXON Flex equipment would be bought from Taser through a sole-source purchase, instead of through the bid process, because it has features not offered by Taser's competitors.

One feature is a "pre-event recording loop," when the camera, placed on standby mode, is always running and preserves the 30 seconds of video before the officer presses the activation button. Another feature allows officers who are ending their shifts to leave the camera in a cradle that downloads images and recharges the camera.

Other systems require officers to spend 20 to 40 minutes downloading data manually, the report says.

The department plans to equip patrol and traffic officers with the cameras, but gang enforcement officers and others could use them, as well.

Officer Tony Arguelles, president of the Modesto Police Officers Association, said the purchase of cameras would be a positive development.

It would allow police to record all kinds of interactions with the public, he said, including those that become contentious. "You can go back and review that contact on the video if an issue arises," he said.

After the cameras are delivered, likely this summer, Harden said, the department will issue a general order instructing officers to activate the cameras when investigating incidents, making subject or traffic stops, during probation searches and while serving search or arrest warrants.

The department also wants officers to activate the cameras on other occasions at their discretion, the chief said.








Marcus Warryton Possible Police Brutality Victim After Cop Seen On Video Beating Suspect



Video footage from an onlooker's cell phone captures a Philadelphia police officer engaging in what at least one defense attorney calls a clear case of police brutality.

In the graphic video, Marcus Warryton is hit repeatedly in the head by an officer's baton, at least once while he's on the ground, according to the Philadelphia Daily News.

Three of the officers involved in the June 4 incident have already been put back on duty. The officer who used the baton is still confined to desk duty, pending the outcome of an investigation by the department's internal affairs division, the paper reported.

"The whole investigation is not complete," Lt. Ray Evers told The Huffington Post. "They're looking at the actions of one of the officers more closely. When it's complete, we will release more information on it."

Evers said the department never releases the names of officers under investigation.

Warryton was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and resisting arrest. At one point, an officer claimed Warryton grabbed for his gun, according to the Philadelphia Tribune. Warryton needed seven stitches to close a gash on his head and ear, the paper reported.

Defense attorney Michael Coard told the Tribune that the officers' actions were unjustified.

"Did they cross the line? No, as far as I’m concerned they obliterated the line,” Coard said. "There was a time when the police had enough fear of the law that they would take you to a back alley with no witnesses to tune you up. Now, even with video cameras and witnesses, even helicopters overhead, they don't give a damn because they know the system protects them."


Courts side with ACLU on videotaping police




Court rules that police cannot stop audio-video recording of officers on duty



The ACLU announced plans to launch an audio-video taping project, targeting Cook County (greater Chicago area) Illinois police officers performing their duties. Illinois is a two-party consent state, meaning that all parties to a conversation must consent to audio recording. Thus, unless the officers consented, audio-video recording would constitute an illegal wiretap. The ACLU launched a pre-emptive lawsuit against the Cook County prosecuting attorney, asking the court to block enforcement of the wiretap law in such circumstances.

A federal district judge ruled against the ACLU on legal standing grounds prior to trial. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, ordering that the ACLU was entitled to a preliminary injunction and a full trial. The appellate court held that the statute unconstitutionally restricts free speech.

By suggesting that there is a First Amendment right to video record police officers in the course of their duties, the Seventh Circuit joins a small number of courts around the nation that have ruled in favor of citizens suing police after officers interrupted video (or audio-video) recording.1Infamous Incident

One of the most public video-recording cases involved Anthony Graber, a motorcyclist who used a helmet camera to film a plainclothes trooper after being stopped for speeding. Graber had been showing off, weaving in and out of traffic on his motorcycle at a high rate of speed, and videotaping his antics. After being stopped and cited, Graber posted the video, which shows the officer approaching him with his gun drawn, to YouTube.

The video quickly went viral.

A few weeks later, a state’s attorney in Maryland charged Graber, a staff sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard and a computer systems engineer, with violating the state’s wiretapping laws. Noted Judge Emory Plitt, a former prosecutor and popular lecturer on law enforcement legal issues, dismissed the charges.

Judge Plitt observed: “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation.”

Additional Examples

A few other trial courts have ruled that there is a general free speech right to videotape police officers. In Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005), the court ruled that there is a free speech right to film police officers in the performance of their public duties. Robinson claimed to be concerned about the way police were conducting truck inspections on a local road, so he decided to document their behavior by filming them from an adjacent property. Robinson videotaped from a position approximately 20 to 30 feet from the highway and never physically interfered with police activities. The police told him to knock it off and, when he refused, they arrested him for harassment.

Robinson was convicted of harassment, but the conviction was overturned on appeal, and Robinson filed a § 1983 action against the troopers. The judge found that no officer could reasonably believe that Robinson was violating the Pennsylvania harassment law. The court ruled against the troopers and took the rare step of awarding punitive damages against the individual officers in addition to general compensatory damages.

Prior to the ACLU’s suit in Chicago, a few federal appellate courts explored the parameters of the First Amendment free speech rights colliding with the privacy rights of victims, witnesses, and officers. In Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), the court recognized “a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph police conduct.” The problem with the Smith case is that the court provided very few facts and little analysis, so we don’t know the precise contours of the right that the court may have recognized.

In Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 203 (3rd Cir. 2005), the court suggested in dicta (meaning that the statement is not necessarily binding law) that “videotaping or photographing the police in the performance of their duties on public property may be a protected activity.” The appellate court also noted that “generally, photography or videography that has a communicative or expressive purpose enjoys some First Amendment protection.”

One decision carefully weighing the state of the law and noting the competing public and private interests comes from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir. 2010). Kelly was a passenger in a truck stopped for a bumper height violation. When the officer saw Kelly videotaping the contact, he arrested Kelly for a wiretap law violation.

Those charges were later dropped.

Kelly sued.

The court granted qualified immunity to the officer with this instructive explanation:

We conclude there was insufficient case law establishing a right to videotape police officers during a traffic stop to put a reasonably competent officer on ‘fair notice’ that seizing a camera or arresting an individual for videotaping police during the stop would violate the First Amendment. Although Smith and Robinson announce a broad right to videotape police, other cases suggest a narrower right. [Other court decisions] imply that videotaping without an expressive purpose may not be protected, and in the Whiteland Woods case we denied a right to videotape a public meeting. Thus, the cases addressing the right of access to information and the right of free expression do not provide a clear rule regarding First Amendment rights to obtain information by videotaping under the circumstances presented here.

Our decision on the First Amendment question is further supported by the fact that none of the precedents upon which Kelly relies involved traffic stops, which the Supreme Court has recognized as inherently dangerous situations. . . . For these reasons, we hold that the right to videotape police officers during traffic stops was not clearly established and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on Kelly’s First Amendment claim.

First Amendment Protection

A short time before the Seventh Circuit considered the ACLU lawsuit, the First Circuit denied qualified immunity to Boston Police officers after they arrested a man for recording an arrest with his cell phone. In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), the court held that video recording an arrest in a public place constituted an exercise of clearly established First Amendment right. Prosecutors ultimately dismissed the wiretapping charges filed against the man. The court allowed the lawsuit alleging a Fourth Amendment violation of wrongful arrest and a First Amendment violation to proceed in the trial court.

In the Illinois ACLU case, the Seventh Circuit court held: “Audio recording is entitled to First Amendment protection.”

Although the Illinois law does not prohibit non-consensual video recording, the court opined that audio recording is entitled to constitutional protection. According to the 2-1 split decision, a ban on audio-video recording of government officials suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the recording itself. The court also held that the officers’ privacy rights are outweighed by the public interest.

The prosecuting attorney argued that allowing the ACLU to audio-video record victim or witness interaction with the police would hinder cooperation in investigations. The court disagreed, noting that such encounters are generally in private places and not where bystanders can hear. That puts the burden on police officers to take extra care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of witnesses and victims. The court did not order that the ACLU be restricted from attempting to capture such interviews.

The lone dissenting judge asked, “Suppose a police detective meets an informant in a park and they sit down on a park bench to talk. A crime reporter sidles up, sits down next to them, takes out his iPhone, and turns on the recorder. The detective and the informant move to the next park bench to continue their conversation in private. The reporter follows them. Is this what the Constitution privileges?”

For now, the answer seems to be that the Constitution allows just that, sometimes putting officers in a very difficult position. Watch for further appeals, perhaps to the entire court of appeals or to the Supreme Court. This issue is obviously not unique to Illinois. As other courts have addressed audio-video recording seemingly barred by state wiretap statutes, thus far, the box score favors audio-video recording as a First Amendment-protected activity. The U.S. Department of Justice has supported the ACLU position in a lawsuit filed in Baltimore2.

In this age, it seems to be common sense for an officer to assume that every move is being recorded. These cases sound a cautionary note for any officer who is being openly recorded. No doubt, some recording activities pose a clear threat to officer and/or public safety because the videographer is actually interfering or the recording threatens sensitive police tactics or identities.

One such case involved a film crew broadcasting tactical officers as they crept toward the location of a barricaded suspect (who only needed to turn on the television to know where to shoot). Officers should interrupt the recording in those cases and seek prosecution advice regarding potential criminal charges. In most circumstances, however, the best advice may be to “smile” because you’re on Candid Camera, like it or not.

Fighting Stop-and-Frisk With a Smartphone

Want to end stop-and-frisk tactics by police? There's an app for that.

There's been a growing public outcryover the NYPD's controversial policy that targets mostly innocent, mostly black and Latino New Yorkers for pat downs and interrogation. Last month, a lawsuit alleging the practice amounts to racial profiling gained class action status, and this week, New York officials asked the Justice Department to consider investigating the program.

But now, pushback against stop-and-frisk is in the hands of everyday citizens. On Wednesday, the NYCLU, in collaboration with Brooklyn developer Jason Van Anden, rolled out a free Android app (iPhone version out later this summer) called "Stop and Frisk Watch," which will allow New Yorkers to monitor and report police misconduct. The app alerts users when folks in their area are being stopped by the cops and lets them film the incident and send it to the NYCLU. Van Anden caught the eye of the NYCLU when he devised an Occupy-inspired app called "I'm Getting Arrested" that allows people to broadcast to their friends that they're being detained. When the NYCLU approached him about creating the stop-and-frisk app, "I was totally on board because I had seen incidents in my neighborhood," Van Anden says. Local community and labor groups also pitched in with brainstorming and test-runs.

While an app for a pricey smartphone might seem like the wrong tack for poor kids in rough neighborhoods, research indicates that Stop and Frisk Watch should in fact be accessible to many. About half of cellphone users in the US have smartphones, and a 2011 Pew study found that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to use their phones for "non-voice" uses like recording videos and downloading apps.

"The idea behind the app is to give every New Yorker a tool he or she can have in their pocket to document what the police are doing, to shine a light on misconduct," said Jennifer Carnig, the NYCLU's communicaton director.

The NYPD stopped and questioned people 685,724 times last year, up 600 percent from 2002, according to the NYCLU. Eighty-seven percent were black or brown, and nine of ten were not arrested or ticketed.

"We know these awful numbers and hear these terrible stories," Carnig said, but the NYCLU wants to "put a face" on the practice. "A lot of people have this miconception that a street stop is really polite. We want to show what it really looks like and shift the conversation." They plan to use the footage collected by the app for public education, press work, lobbying—and maybe even litigation.

The police, unsurprisingly, take issue with the app. Cheryl Crispin, a public information officer at the NYPD, says the app might be useful for criminals since it publicizes police location. "Privacy issues are legion," she adds. "It may be troubling to some that the NYCLU is collecting personal identifying information." The app's settings allow, but do not require, the user to input their name, phone number, and email address.

Stop and Frisk Watch's predecessor was pretty successful, according to Van Anden. He says that I'm Getting Arrested has been dowloaded close to 30,000 times and is used around the world. If Stop and Frisk Watch takes off, a new approach to grass-roots pushback could help quash the increasingly notorious practice.


Victim of police brutality launches Project Citizens


A man, who claims he is a victim of police brutality, is launching a project to arm 100 citizens with video cameras. He's even started training sessions.

If you search APD on YouTube you will find all sorts of videos.

In one clip officers are breaking up a fight on 6th Street. One of them uses their taser on a guy.

In another video in East Austin the photographer gets so close an officer asks, "Would you mind stepping back sir?"

One of the more recent additions shows a man named Antonio Buehler getting put in handcuffs at a 7-Eleven.

"I feel so blessed that there was a random citizen across the street that night," Buehler said.

He told us by phone that early New Year's Day he was filling up when he saw two APD officers being rough with a woman on a DWI stop. He reached for his phone and started snapping pictures.

"I reached for my camera because I felt there was nothing else I could do for her other than document it," said Buehler.

APD stands by the officers' actions. According to the arrest affidavit, it was Buehler who was in the wrong. Officers stated he was "verbally aggressive," in an officer's face, and spit on one of them.

A person across the street happened to get video of the arrest which Buehler thinks will clear him of the felony charge of harassment of a public servant.

"Now when I see a cop interacting with someone I pull out my camera," Buehler said.

In addition to purchasing a video camera, he has since created the group Peaceful Streets.

In a video he states his goal is to raise $10,000 to purchase 100 video cameras and distribute them to activists throughout the city.

On July 14, he will hold a training session.

"All we want is to level the playing field. We want people to be able to protect each other against police abuse," Buehler said.

Assistant Chief David Carter isn't worried.

"I think the police department is absolutely okay with that in the sense that we recognize people are filming us each and every day," Carter said.

All that he asks is that those doing the filming don't get too close.

"The officer may be in some danger, the public may be in some danger. I think if people want to film. That's fine. All we would ask is to keep a reasonable distance away," Carter said.

"A good cop can be honored, but we have to get the bad cops off the streets because until the bad cops are off the streets there is not going to be respect for the good cops that are out there," Buehler said.

Buehler did file a complaint with the office of the police monitor against the officers in that video. The case is still under internal review. He is due for court later this month.




Two Men Sue Chicago Police; Claim They Were Abused And Falsely Charged For Filming Officers



In the past year, we applauded two Illinois courts for protecting every citizen's right to record on-duty police, and ruling that a law criminalizing the act is unconstitutional. We similarly pointed to Boston, where a court forced the city to pay someone they arrested for filming the cops. Of course, it's pretty concerning that this was ever in question to begin with—normally, the argument that "you don't need privacy unless you've got something to hide" is fallacious for a number of reasons, but that doesn't extend to people who are empowered and armed, ostensibly with the consent of the citizenry and on the condition that they follow their own strict code of behavior. The fact that there is a clear push to let officers operate without public scrutiny is intolerable on every level.
But, perhaps worse still, there is the fact that police don't always need a law to protect them from the public's lenses—they can just take matters into their own hands. There are plenty of examples of police harassing people who film them, often threatening to arrest them or going ahead and doing it. It's an intimidation tactic, and really just part of a much larger problem, which is that no matter how much a person is in the right (and how much they know it), the police have plenty of ways to make their life hell for a long time before they see justice, if they ever do. This appears to be the case in a recent Chicago lawsuit, where two men allege they were battered, strip-searched and falsely charged for filming a traffic accident caused by a police car.
Benjamin Perez and Bobby Milton sued Chicago and nine police officers in Federal Court.
The men say they were talking outside with some friends in an early morning in August 2011 when a friend rode by on a motorcycle, heading south on Chicago Avenue.
"At the same time, defendant Captain [Kevin Navarro] was driving a marked Chicago Police Department vehicle, an SUV, northbound on South Chicago Avenue in the wrong lane of traffic, heading northbound in the southbound lane," according to the complaint.
"Defendant Captain drove his police vehicle into plaintiffs' friend, who was traveling southbound on his motorcycle, causing plaintiffs' friend to suffer serious injury."
Numerous police officers arrived quickly.
"Defendant officers observed plaintiffs using their cell phones to record the collision scene, and immediately took plaintiff Perez's cell phone and placed handcuffs on him, taking him into custody even though Perez was not doing anything illegal," the complaint states.
"Defendant officers placed Perez in the back of a police car and demanded that Perez show them how to delete the photographs he had taken with his cell phone.
"After plaintiff Perez was taken into custody, plaintiff Milton, who had also been using his cell phone to record the scene, was seated on his motorcycle, when defendant [Officers] Frahm and Hernandez approached him.
"Defendants Frahm and Hernandez grabbed plaintiff Milton, forced him off of his motorcycle, and threw him to the ground.
The suit continues, claiming that the men were taken to the police station and threatened with felony charges if they didn't help officers delete the recording, and one was strip-searched to check for "other cameras and recording devices" (because most people keep a spare iPhone taped to their inner thigh, of course). They are seeking damages for "false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, conspiracy, false imprisonment, battery, and malicious prosecution".
Now, we don't have the officers' side of the story yet, but the allegations certainly look bad—and it's not hard to find plenty of instances of similar actions by the police. Assuming the complaint is even close to true, hopefully the court recognizes the affront to justice that this kind of police behavior represents, and joins the growing ranks of courts that are affirming the right to record the police and hold them accountable for their actions.

Ohio officer fights suspension over wrongful video camera arrest




  • Defying a direct order from his supervisor, Akron Police Officer Donald Schismenos had a woman arrested on false felony charges last summer after she refused to hand over a video camera which she used to film him making an arrest.

The woman ended up spending 18 hours in jail before her charges were dropped.

The cop ended up with a 15-day suspension, which he has yet to serve. Schismenos has appealed the suspension and is scheduled for a hearing next month.

The woman, Sarah Watkins, is now considering filing a lawsuit. I don’t know what’s taking her so long.

The incident occurred last June when Watkins stepped outside her home and began filming police arresting a man on disorderly conduct charges. After the arrest, Schismenos demanded she hand over the camera as evidence.

As a couple of attorneys explained on Photography is Not a Crime last year, unless that camera is used in a commission of a crime, police must first obtain a warrant.

In its article on the incident, the Akron Beacon Journal interviewed a law professor who further confirmed this.

Under some circumstances, police can seize a citizen’s video as evidence. However, because Watkins was merely a witness and not a suspect, police should first seek a search warrant to confiscate the camera, said University of Akron law professor Dean Carro.

”The general rule is if a police officer has probable cause to believe the item was used in a crime or is the fruit of a crime, he can seize the item,” Carro said. ”In this situation, it doesn’t appear that either circumstance is met. So therefore, my inclination is that the officer would need a search warrant in order to obtain it.”

Here is an excerpt of the exchange that took place between Watkins and Schismenos, according to the video, which can be seen by clicking on the article.

”How ya doing, ma’am?” Schismenos says, according to the videotape.

”Appreciate you getting that on video for us. What’s your name?”

”You don’t need to know my name,” Watkins replies.

”Yes, I do,” the officer responds. ”And I need to seize the video and so I can get it back to you, I need your name.”

”No,” she replies.

”Ma’am, I’m seizing the video. Don’t walk into the house with it because it’s evidence. You can get it back, but we need to make a copy of it.”

”This is my camera. This is my personal camera,” Watkins says.

”And we’re going to seize it, ma’am, for evidence. If you have a problem with that, call a supervisor.”

Watkins still refused to surrender the video and at one point tried to go inside. Schismenos grabbed her arm to stop her.

”Ma’am, you’re going to give me the camera, or I will take the camera.”

”No.”

”If you don’t, you’ll be arrested for obstructing.”

”No.”

”And you’ll be arrested for tampering.”

Lakura Watkins intervened, asking the officer why her mother would be charged.

”Because that’s evidence now. She got [Baker's] disorderly conduct on tape and we’re going to use that in court,” he says.

Eventually, Schismenos’ supervisor, Sgt. David Hammond, ordered him to “let it go” when learning about him trying to obtain the video camera.

”Don, it’s not worth all that,” Hammond told Schismenos. ”We are not taking her video for a [misdemeanor disorderly conduct].”

And Schismenos did let it go. At least for the time being.

But he ended up writing out a felony criminal warrant for Watkins, charging her with tampering with evidence and obstructing justice.

The following day, a couple of officers knocked on her door and arrested her, where she was forced to strip, shower and sleep in a jail reeking of urine.

A county grand jury eventually dismissed the charges.

Even though Schismenos defied his sergeant’s direct orders, he still doesn’t believe he deserves a 15-day suspension. And the police union is backing him up.

Union President Paul Hlynsky proved to be as ignorant of the law as Schismenos when he said that the officer ”had a perfect right to seize the camera as evidence.”

He had absolutely no right, which is why Watkins should be suing.

Investigation into Possible Police Misconduct in New Haven



The FBI is investigating, as is the Internal Affairs Division of New Haven police.

 New Haven police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating a possible case of police misconduct involving a police sergeant.
Police said the investigation stems from an arrest in the Temple Street Courtyard during the early morning hours of Saturday, June 2, as bars were closing.

NBC Connecticut obtained exclusive video of the police incident, one of several videos witnesses took.

"All I seen was the cops swinging and punching him in the face from behind, actually,” said Devon Youmans, one of many people who pulled out a cell phone and started to record that morning.
He said police took things way too far.

“That was uncalled for definitely uncalled for all of that,” Youmans said.

The New Haven Independent reported on Monday that the chief of police ordered an internal investigation into Sgt. Chris Rubino, the sergeant accused of having a woman arrested after she used an iPhone to record him allegedly beating a handcuffed suspect. The woman, identified as Jennifer Gondola, put the cell phone into her bra.


Chicago PD Sued for Deleting Footage, Strip Searching Citizens Over Cop Car Crash


 





Chicago Police Captain Kevin Navarro was driving a marked police car down the wrong way of a busy street when he collided head-on with a motorcycle last year.

The incident just happened to be caught on camera because a group of citizens had been video recording their friend on the motorcycle.

And they continued shooting photos and videos of the aftermath, documenting the police SUV in the wrong lane.

But by the time a multitude of cops showed up to the scene, they began arresting the citizens with cameras and deleting their footage.

The citizens were acquitted and now they are suing:

The following is from the lawsuit, which was posted by Courthouse News.

"Defendant officers observed plaintiffs using their cell phones to record the collision scene, and immediately took plaintiff Perez's cell phone and placed handcuffs on him, taking him into custody even though Perez was not doing anything illegal," the complaint states.

"Defendant officers placed Perez in the back of a police car and demanded that Perez show them how to delete the photographs he had taken with his cell phone.

"After plaintiff Perez was taken into custody, plaintiff Milton, who had also been using his cell phone to record the scene, was seated on his motorcycle, when defendant [Officers] Frahm and Hernandez approached him.

"Defendants Frahm and Hernandez grabbed plaintiff Milton, forced him off of his motorcycle, and threw him to the ground.

"Defendants Frahm and Hernandez placed plaintiff Milton in handcuffs, and then took him to a police car as well."

At the police station, "Defendant officers demanded that plaintiff Perez provide them with the password to his cell phone, so that they could delete the pictures he had taken at the scene of the collision," the complaint states.

"Defendant officers told plaintiff Perez that if he did not give them the password to his phone, he would be charged with a felony offense.

"Plaintiff Perez gave them the password, and defendant officers then deleted the pictures of the scene of the collision from plaintiff Perez's cellphone.

"While at the station, defendant officers also strip searched plaintiff Perez, in an apparent effort to see if he had any other cameras or recording devices on his person.

"Defendant officers also demanded that plaintiff Milton give them the password for his cellular telephone.

"However, plaintiff Milton refused to do so."

The cops then tried, unsuccessfully, to delete the video on Milton's phone, and falsely accused him of battery and resisting arrest, and accused Perez of assault, according to the complaint.

I spoke with attorney Torreya Hamilton earlier today who said she might send me that video later on today. If she does, I will post it here.



Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com.

CARLOS MILLER'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

I am immersed in a legal case where I not only want to clear my criminal charges stemming from my arrest in January, but I want to sue the Miami-Dade Police Department for deleting my footage, which I was able to recover.

My goal is to set some type of precedent to ensure this does not happen as often as it does today where cops simply get away with it.

Cop Charged With Lying In False Arrest Of Sheepshead Bay Man


A grand jury indicted Officer Diego Palacios – formerly of the 61st Precinct – on felony charges for locking up an apparently innocent Sheepshead Bay man who the officer claimed tried to run him over in his car.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes revealed the grand jury’s decision yesterday, indicting the officer on five types of lying: offering a false instrument for filing, falsifying business records, making an apparently sworn false statement, perjury and making a punishable false written statement. He was also charged with official misconduct, the New York Times reports.
Falsifying business records is a felony offense for which Palacios was charged with two counts.
Palacios arrested East 23rd Street resident John Hockenjos in February, saying on a police report that he drove his car at “a high rate of speed” towards the officer in an attempt to hit him, forcing him “to jump out of the way.” Hockenjos was charged with felony reckless endangerment and spent several days behind bars.
But surveillance video provided by Hockenjos showed that the officer was standing in his driveway when he pulled in, slowly, and that the officer never budged.
After the surveillance footage surfaced, Palacios, an 8-year veteran of the NYPD, was transferred to a different precinct and placed on desk duty. He has now been suspended.
All charges against Hockenjos have been dropped. His wife, Irena, who faced a summons for disorderly conduct, has also been cleared.
In March, Hockenjos confronted the 61st Precinct Deputy Inspector about the incident at a Community Council meeting, telling him that he now feared to call the police.
“I feel unprotected. I’m now afraid to call 911 … I’m afraid for my life,” Hockenjos said. “I can’t protect myself, commander. I can’t do it. All I can do is take pictures.”
Hockenjos’s wife Irena has called Sheepshead Bites on numerous occasions since the arrest, expressing her frustrations and fears that she cannot call police when she feels in danger around the home, and especially not for disputes emerging from their ongoing feud with a neighbor they claim is building on their property. The police have been called to the scene many times by both the Hockenjoses and the neighbor, and it was the neighbor who had summoned Palacios to the scene in February