
Framed For Selling Crack, Surveillance Video Helps Him Sue Police - jhonovich
http://ipvm.com/updates/2416
======
aric
This is frighteningly _normal_.

$500,000 won't make prosecutors suddenly interested in veering away from
extinguishing people to win. I doubt $500 billion-with-a-B would scratch
beyond the surface of flawed architecture.

The United States' criminal justice system, as a particular hodgepodge of
incentives, disincentives, esoteric proceedings, privileged access, violent
sentencing, plea pressure, and power-tripping careerism -- irrespective of
cruel laws -- is a deeply failed model in the context of ethics. It's a very
'successful' model in other contexts. Before anyone replies with comparative
excuses or appeals to historical precedence, see this. I, too, agree that US
"justice" is far more ethical than the "justice" of North Korea and several
other fundamentalist countries. Great. I, too, agree that nearly every other
nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive. Rejoice for a second
in shared misery.

~~~
aragot
> billion-with-a-big-B

+1

> I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically
> primitive.

I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental
differences between France and Commonwealth law structures:

\- Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are
allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes
heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person
has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course,
like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed
to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's
so much more aligned with human's behavior.

\- In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't
add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security
guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also
changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame
gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that
an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover
a mistake.

\- In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven,
which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental
flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't
afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't
commit.

\- In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven
guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of
DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial.

There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more
ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too.

[1]
[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage)
Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.

~~~
nazka
We can be proud of that. In France we have a great justice. And not only for
criminal cases but also in other fields like for instance for the business
law. On top of that the Supreme Court of France always has and acts with a
sharp ethics definition.

> _In France it 's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven
> guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures
> of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial._

Plus you have 2 independent criminal investigations. One against you and one
for you. Everything done by the police. Where in the US you have only one
Against you and you have to prove that you are innocent by yourself (so by
paying private investigators).

But if only we would have the spirit of entrepreneurship from the SV. And I am
not even talking about the open source, the technologies, or the engineers
freedom to innovate: an innovation starting right from the bottom...

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
>Plus you have 2 independent criminal investigations. One against you and one
for you. Everything done by the police. Where in the US you have only one
Against you and you have to prove that you are innocent by yourself (so by
paying private investigators).

Omg srsly? We need this... right now.

~~~
Kell
Actually, it's not exactly two investigations. In criminal cases, if you face
at least 10 years in jail, the investigation is not headed by the prosecution
or the police, it's a special judge, who's actually a sitting independent
judge. And his job is to head an investigation, seeking both proofs for you or
against you (with the help of the police, who executes his orders and
requests), and then presenting everything to the prosecution and the defense
lawyers before going into trial. So because his job is not to convict you,
like the prosecution, his investigation is actually much more neutral, with
some exceptions.

It's quite a good system in theory, but it has some quirks.

------
mortov
He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the
charge was false.

In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to
use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and
is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself.

Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of
evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's
pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim.

The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for
corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting
evidence) is sufficient for a conviction.

What could possibly go wrong ?

~~~
anigbrowl
_The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for
corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting
evidence) is sufficient for a conviction._

I seriously doubt that. Please cite a reliable source or an original document
for this, I suspect you've misunderstood a proposal and drastically
exaggerated what it means.

~~~
rhizome
GP appears to misunderstand to what "corroboration" applies (evidence, not
allegations), but he's not completely wrong, and at any rate an explanation is
not hard to find:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law)

------
noonespecial
"The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers
to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory
agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law
jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of
perverting the course of justice."(1)

Fortunately (heh), we've carefully defined obstruction of justice in the USA
so that it _doesn 't_ seem to apply to prosecutors who stare right at
exculpatory evidence and then try to hide it to pervert justice anyway. I'm
inclined to stop calling them "prosecutors" and take the advice of my
spellcheck when I mistyped it and call them "persecutors".

(1)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice)

------
kevingadd
No doubt they will pin all this on the informant despite the fact that the
prosecutors are complete scum that thought they could get away with hiding
evidence. I'm sure they knew what it showed.

~~~
tehwalrus
In the UK, a prosecution would fall apart if police officers were cross
examined and had to admit that they were hiding evidence.

The procedures for handling evidence are very strict, and police are obliged
to register everything in a database (I don't know the name of the laws
forcing them to do this, but it was explained to me when I was on a jury).

You then have both the officers who were on the scene and the master of
records, where video evidence is used, testify about the source of the video
and any processing it has been through, and so on. These prosecution witnesses
are all cross-examined, and if a defense lawyer had the angle that procedure
had not been followed properly (i.e. the master of records, and those
investigating the case, had ignored or hidden evidence that supported the
defense), the officers' testimony would fall apart and they would likely be
charged themselves (or at least disciplined internally) on the basis of the
evidence they gave in court under oath.

------
pygy_
In France and Belgium the investigation is done by a neutral judge (known as
_juge d 'instruction_).

It usually prevents these kinds of misgivings.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system)

~~~
dhughes
A judge by definition impartial/neutral, that's the point of a judge.

That's frightening that France and Belgium have the need of a special judge
called a neutral judge.

~~~
Kell
It's because in France and Belgium we have a category, called _" Magistrat"_
that contains both the judges (independent, neutral etc.) and the prosecutors
(neither independent, nor neutral). So we often discuss it saying that judges
are neutral magistrates. Sometimes this is lost in translation :).

Edit : And the Juge d'Instruction IS a special judge, because he doesn't judge
anything, his job is to head all investigations in serious and complicated
cases. Normally that would be the prosecutors job... so it's an independent
and trully neutral man (a judge) doing a prosecutor job, in the interest of
the accusation and the defense, at the same time. That's quite _special_.

------
mschuster91
Thank God in Germany the prosecution is _required_ to make _all_ evidence
available to the defense lawyers, including material which can counter the
prosecutor's claims.

~~~
_delirium
That's also supposed to be the law in the U.S., _especially_ for material that
could counter the prosecutor's claims or otherwise help the defendant. If a
defendant discovers material was withheld, that can be a basis for overturning
a conviction later:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland)

However it's rare for a prosecutor to be personally held liable for
withholding evidence, unless it was something really egregious where it can be
proven they did it on purpose.

~~~
aragot
You should invent bets. If the prosecutor bets the evidence is useless and it
the defendants gets the opposite, we unveil the evidence and if the outcomes
turns over, the prosecutor gets double the penalty the defendant would have
taken.

The upside is, it won't affect trials where the accused is guilty. But it will
affect trials where the prosecutor is.

~~~
brazzy
Please tell me you're joking and don't _really_ want to see all major
criminals go free because nobody will risk prosecuting them. Or do you think
you live in a fairy tale world where there is only ever doubt about evidence
when the accused is innocent?

~~~
aragot
Exactly the rhetoric which leads to the unfairness of the system.

Yes, if there's a single doubt about the evidence, you _must not_ frame the
person.

We're talking here about the justice system refusing to return evidence which
could help the defense, and the accused was found innocent. It's not like they
acted well anyway. Tampering with jail time _must be_ a high pressure job for
those who execute it. No mistake allowed.

------
hawkharris
Before recording a police officer, make sure you don't live in a "two - party
consent" state, in which recording someone without his or her knowledge can be
a crime.

One of my good friends, who is a civil rights attorney in Boston, represented
a client who secretly used his phone to record himself getting pulled over for
a speeding ticket.

He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.

~~~
coldcode
Not an issue with a store owner, there is no need for consent as it is a
public location and where recording is expected.

~~~
rmc
Yeah otherwise _all_ CCTV cameras in shops/banks/etc would be illegal.

------
TallGuyShort
>> his lawyer will file a wrongful arrest suit against the city, seeking
$500,000 from the police department, county and the village.

And how much of the $500k will be actually be paid by the guilty parties, and
how much will be paid for by innocent citizenry?

~~~
protomyth
All of it will be paid by taxpayers. The sad thing is the veil is far too hard
to pierce for personal responsibility to be a factor in the day to day lives
of public servants.

~~~
imroot
Actually, most if not all of it will be paid by the city's insurance company
-- but the city will have to pay increased premiums (or find a new insurance
provider) after it's done.

~~~
protomyth
Check the self insurance part of what the city has purchased. Most cities have
a very large self insurance payout to keep the rates low.

------
mercurial
I suppose that there is an incentive for each of the bad actors in this
scenario. What do the informant and the prosecutor get out of a successful
conviction? Money? Reputation?

~~~
lazyjones
The prosecutor at least gets reputation for convictions. The informant might
get some pocket money in the process. Both might get additional "motivation"
from corporations running privatized prisons ...

~~~
smtddr
_> >privatized prisons_

The fact that these even exist is disgusting.

What are the board-meetings like in this kind of company?

 _" Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to
increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people
in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be
legalized. We can't have that."_

I wish someone could "accidentally" leak the discussions that go on with execs
in charge of those places.

~~~
rmc
Lest you think that they are the source of the problems, but prison officer
unions are also in favour of more crimes & longer sentences for similar
selfish reasons.

------
jhonovich
I know a lot of people are understandably concerned about surveillance video,
but this is a case where if the guy did not have it, he would have been going
to jail, probably for a long time.

~~~
makomk
People are understandably concerned about surveillance video because it
inherently favours the police. If this was a police officer framing him,
chances are the video would have mysteriously been "lost" or "damaged" whilst
it was in police custody.

~~~
the_ancient
That is why you should have a real time or near real time offsite encrypted
backup...

------
baldajan
I read stories like this, and I believe the line between China and the US
blurs more and more. This is truly a crazy system.

~~~
brodo
The Chinese legal system is completely different form western systems.

Here's a "This american life" episode which gives you a nice overview:
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/448/a...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/448/adventure?act=1)

Also this documentary:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs)

~~~
baldajan
It's more the idea that prosecutors are using their power to hold evidence and
resources against innocent defendants (you're innocent until proven guilty).
Worse, they're planting "evidence" to get their way - this isn't a land of the
free.

Even though I agree that China and the US are still different in their justice
systems, I believe the lines between them are blurring, and eventually we will
find it hard to distinguish the difference. Or maybe, the US has always been
like that (unjust), but just really good at marketing (via Hollywood)

------
memracom
And to think that Americans make such a big fuss about corruption in Ukraine,
Russia, China, etc. They should shut up and pay attention to the extensive and
systemic corruption in the USA. At least countries like Russia and China are
making attempts to clean up their local corruption problems. But what is
America doing to clean up its own house?

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote
that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in
thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye,
and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's
eye.

~~~
gamed
This is a good example of the Tu quoque[1] logical fallacy. Just because
America may have its own problems, or be hypocritical in some sense, does not
mean that they should not criticise the international community. Hypocrisy
does not invalidate the argument.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

------
pasbesoin
The careers of the police and prosecutor involved should be ended, for a
start. They should also be criminally prosecuted, themselves.

If we can't place reasonable trust in law enforcement... well, then, we are no
longer a nation of law (imperfect as that is).

The compensation should also be at least an order of magnitude larger, as only
painful (both in publicity and in resulting operating constraints) amounts of
money seem to have any real effect on the larger system.

------
lando2319
I've heard stories of Detectives ignoring someone's pleas to check some
evidence that would prove their innocence. What incentive would a detective
have in NOT checking out the person's claim? Do they just assume the person is
lying and that their intel on this person is solid? In a case like this, it
seem plausible from the beginning that the CI could be lying, (at least as the
story is told) perhaps there are just no consequences for these detectives
when getting it wrong.

It just seems like it's worth checking this guy's Surveillance Camera Footage
sooner rather than later.

~~~
kevingadd
A conviction is always better than the alternative. The job of detectives and
prosecutors is, essentially, to find guilty people and convict them of
committing crimes. It's pretty easy for the 'guilty' part of this job to get
erased because none of the incentives really discourage the arrest or
conviction of innocent people.

------
busterarm
This is why every video surveillance system needs a secure internet connection
and automatic upload offsite.

It's all about chain of custody. You don't want to be begging for access to
evidence that you know exists, you want to have it, introduce it yourself and
make prosecutors look stupid.

And if your connection is physically cut, then you can introduce an element of
doubt.

------
robbiemitchell
> "The cops said there was no need for that -- that they had me on video, and
> they had audio. ..."

So the cops were flat-out lying?

------
joesmo
The biggest problem (and there are many) is the use of informants and arrest
based on information they provide. Anyone can make up a story or evidence this
way. There is absolutely no way that crack could be identified in a photo.
This is, of course, how the "justice" system works in the US.

~~~
unreal37
The worst problem with using informants in my eyes is that the informant only
has incentives to get an arrest. Could the informant leave the store and say
"the guy said he didn't have any drugs"?

Police officers, at least, can be fired for being caught lying and have an
incentive for peace and order in the public.

------
midas007
Another reason to have video+audio inside and out of a brick & mortar.

The other thing is to live stream a backup to somewhere out-of-reach of local
& country jurisdictions. Because if you don't provide your own reliable
evidence, you're going to get fucked.

------
alexeisadeski3
It would be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear
uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.

Obviously the use of compensated informants would be prohibited as well.

------
abhi3188
Im surprised hes suing them only for 500k..arent there any other criminal
charges that he should file for this?

------
warfangle
>My lawyer had to beg for those tapes.

Why didn't his lawyer bring up the Brady rule?

------
puppetmaster3
Based on the story, this did not happen in Scotland.

------
Aoyagi
What is so interesting about this? It's not like the NSA helped to man to
clean his name. The cameras were his private surveillance of his private
property, I understand. That's what the surveillance is for, to provide
proofs.

