
Police Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Fabricate Charges - jpatokal
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/police-accidentally-record-themselves-conspiring-fabricate-criminal-charges-against
======
h4nkoslo
This is incredibly common, much more so than shooting someone or even a
serious beating. The logic is:

\- I just slapped the phone out of their hand / threw them against the
pavement / committed some other sort of assault, usually because they somehow
affronted my honor (eg, by asking what law they were breaking).

\- If I just walk away, it's clear that that was unjustified.

\- So I fabricate a resisting arrest / obstructing an investigation /
disturbing the peace / assault on an officer claim for them to fight, so it
devolves into he said / she said, where I win by virtue of my reputation as a
cop & the lack of AV evidence.

That's what the "we have to cover our ass" discussion is about.

~~~
plandis
This might sound counterintuitive but let's say the cop admitted to some
mistake? Say, slapping a cellphone out of the hand of some random person.
What's the outcome? Punishment? More education?

Basically I'm wondering what is so bad for the cop afterward that they would
rather try to cover up a simple mistake?

~~~
h4nkoslo
The most proximate risk is that your colleagues will no longer trust you to
"cover their asses". That usually results in you being driven out of the
department or worse.

You're usually not talking about a "mistake" (although that happens too, eg,
cops arresting someone after accidentally hitting them in a crosswalk), you're
talking about an intentional on-street retaliation for affronting their honor.

------
peeters
Every charge ever laid by these three officers now needs to be reevaluated,
with the benefit of the doubt given to the defendants. This could cost
millions of taxpayer dollars, as well as have guilty people go free because of
the doubt thrown on the process.

I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this
type of activity. It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their
skin.

~~~
harryh
It's not that hard to understand. This guy was preventing cops from doing
their jobs effectively. A job they felt was important. It's easy to see him as
a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law
without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that.

I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand
why it happens.

~~~
ctrl-j
> So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that.

And settled on an illegal way of doing so. When they are law enforcement
officers. It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and
serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as
long as they think they are doing right by the greater good.

If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve
to go to jail.

~~~
bdavisx
>If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve
to go to jail.

And you deserve to go to jail for longer than a regular citizen should if you
do it in the performance of your job. I never agreed to follow any laws, let
alone enforce them -- they did.

~~~
Retric
Exactly, LEO need to be held to a higher standard not a lower one than the
general populace. Yes, this might require higher pay / more training etc, but
law enforcement is one of the most important government functions to get
right.

------
coldtea
For the naive people who think such things never happen because there is no
recorded evidence (as if there would be official statements on such cases).
Well, here is some, even inadvertently recorded.

Any European from England and Germany to France and Spain and Greece knows
this kind of thing has been going on all the time -- and was especially hot
during the cold war, late 60s student protests, etc, but all the way up to
now. Because of more militant opposition parliament parties we've also had
several documented cases and even some getting to court (usually for a slap on
the wrist). No reason to think the US would be better in this regard.

~~~
rayiner
Any system will be abused. You balance the risk of that abuse against the
downside of letting criminals do what they want. There are lots of countries
were the police don't really control the streets--that's not pleasant either.

The problem here isn't that abuse happens--it's that even when there is hard
evidence of it it can't be successfully addressed and the offenders punished.
What keeps abuse of the system to acceptable levels is the social norms and
deterrent effect created by the law. Both are eviscerated when clear-cut
abuses go unpunished.

~~~
coldtea
> _Any system will be abused. You balance the risk of that abuse against the
> downside of letting criminals do what they want._

That's not abuse. It's systemic -- the police system works as people in power
(governments, private interests, rich lobbies) intend it to when that happens.

Other stuff, that they don't allow, doesn't not happen, or is seriously
stomped down when it does -- not just as a slap on the wrist.

~~~
rayiner
The "people in power" don't want unarmed black people getting shot. They get
no conceivable benefit from that. It's tempting to blame government and rich
people for everything, but the fact of the matter is that the police are
abusive because ordinary people want it that way. The bulwark propping up the
police are local property owners.

~~~
unprepare
>The "people in power" don't want unarmed black people getting shot.

>police are abusive because ordinary people want it that way

What?? How am i getting a benefit from unarmed black people getting shot
anymore than a senator?

No if anything it comes down to misguided incentives (broken window policing,
drug policies, police and attorneys wanting to forward their political
aspirations, etc) This is all controlled by the government (which is of course
controlled by moneyed interests.

~~~
rayiner
Why are broken window policing and drug policies a thing? Why does "tough on
crime" further DAs' political ambitions? Because that's what ordinary people
demand.

I grew up in the 1990s. When kids would be called to assembly on a regular
basis and teachers would shriek at them "just say no!" Drugs and were
destroying our children, in their opinion, and no measures were too extreme to
stop that. Those same people voted for mandatory minimums, three strikes
laws', elimination of parole, etc. California's unjust three strikes law,
which imposed life sentences for a third non-violent felony, was a _ballot
initiative._ Trump and Romney didn't give us the justice system we have. My
third-grade teacher did.

~~~
zzzcpan
No. Ordinary people don't demand stupid things like that, but governments want
those things. So governments invent narratives about the children or whatever
is the easiest for people to get emotional and protective about and push their
agendas onto them. People, of course, being so easily influenced, buy this and
approve government initiatives.

~~~
rayiner
I recommend you watch the PBS special Prohibition. It does a great job of
explaining how the prohibition on alcohol was a grass-roots movement by women
and Protestants. It was actually against the government's interest, because
alcohol taxes at the time made up 1/3 of federal revenue. It'll disabuse you
of this notion that "government" is always to blame for how people vote.

------
rayiner
The police union is going to spend huge amounts of money--money that is going
to come ultimately from tax dollars--defending this indefensible conduct. This
insanity won't stop until those unions are dismantled.

~~~
pc86
This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. This is a police brutality and
police corruption issue.

~~~
John23832
Normally I'm pro union and workers rights, but police unions are central to
the corruption issue.

Police become and stay corrupt because they know they are protected. "Thin
Blue Line" and "Blue Wall of Silence" type stuff. Police unions really
perpetuate this type of behavior by discouraging actual scrutiny of charges
brought against officers. Police unions take a "we'll get you out of this,
here's what you say and do" attitude taken towards charges all charges. And if
they can't get all the charges outright dropped, the punishment is usually a
slap on the wrist.

And don't get me started about "administrative paid leave".

~~~
brainfire
You're describing a problem with the prosecutor's office, not the police
union.

~~~
1024core
Problem is: the prosecutor's office depends on the cops to do its job. If it
starts prosecuting cops, they will stop cooperating, making its job almost
impossible. And cops will outright sabotage inquiries into their own conduct.

Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to
serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.

~~~
rayiner
> Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed
> to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.

And if they had been Wal-Mart greeters instead of union employees, they
would've been fired on the spot.

------
jasonkostempski
Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests. I think
even just audio would be a really good start and is a lot easier to capture
and store in the field than video. Sure, it's a lot easier to edit and fake
too but I'm sure a reasonably tamper proof device exists. Every company I've
worked for records phone calls, this shouldn't be any different.

~~~
FilterSweep
> Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests.

Unfortunately, even when dash cams are mandated, the footage is often
corrupted or lost[0]

[0]"80% of CPD dash cam videos are missing audio"
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/01/29/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-
audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/?utm_term=.c20971deb828)

~~~
hx87
If that is indeed the case, then missing evidence should count as evidence
against the officer.

~~~
CaptSpify
It should generally result in a mis-trial. Is there a punishment for "loss of
evidence" by a cop? If so, that should apply as well

------
finid
_“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can
hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a
third._

That doesn't sound like it's the first time they've had that type of
discussion. I wonder how many innocent citizens are in jail right now because
of those cops.

~~~
jomamaxx
There is nothing necessarily immoral or legal about what those cops did.

They were in an incident and were deciding what charges to lay.

It's a tricky thing laying charges.

Laying charges is not abuse of power.

Now - if the cops were inventing or fabricating evidence - saying the person
did something he did not do - then this would be definitely abuse, but it's
not clear that happened.

But if someone standing in the street with a gun is doing something a cop can
feasibly consider 'public nuisance' \- and it's within their right to charge
someone with 'public nuisance' \- then the issue here is not the cops, it's
the loose definition of 'public nuisance' and the cops ability to arbitrarily
apply it.

The article is mostly quotes from the ACLU, so it's only one side of the story
and selected information, it would be interesting to know more.

~~~
sethish
Did you see the the part of the video where they said they would make up
multiple witness complaints about the victim?

~~~
mywittyname
Does stuff like this stand up in court though, considering the Sixth
Amendment?

~~~
finid
Without the video evidence, yes, it would.

Who's the judge going to believe? Three cops, or one "trouble maker"?

------
cryoshon
Let's see some prosecutions of the police for harassment, false imprisonment,
destruction of property, assault, battery, conspiracy to commit a felony,
creating a disturbance, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, and
obstruction of the law. Let's see them go to prison for abusing the citizens.
This is a clear cut case of police attempting to fabricate charges in order to
put away someone who is guilty only of contempt of cop.

Set a course for confrontation with the police union; it's necessary.
Liquidate police by firing and prosecuting as necessary to effect a clean
department that won't brutalize the public. There will always be more people
to sign up to join the police, so we may as well get rid of the shitty ones.
Cleaning house is long overdue, and we need to start realistically expecting
to have to fire significant proportions of a lot of different police
departments. Believe me, law and order won't simply break down overnight if we
start holding the police accountable.

The only way we as the public are going to render comeuppance to the police is
if we get political momentum going for harsh legal/criminal consequences when
they abuse the public.

~~~
googletazer
Cops convicted in every country go to special resort prisons. Just repealing
this, and pushing them to general population prisons for serious shit might be
enough of a deterrent. Sure - it may be a death sentence, but one who gives
them out should expect one himself.

~~~
hx87
If enough of them are in a given prison they can form a gang to protect
themselves.

------
tehwalrus
Is it possible to bring private prosecutions in the US? In the UK I believe
you could criminal-charge these guys yourself with sufficient funds.

I am no longer shocked or surprised when I read stories about US cops like
this: it seems a massive stain on the USA internationally. I'm sad (but not
surprised) that no politicians in the presidential election are making a big
deal of it.

~~~
talmand
I'm not shocked at reports of corrupt police officers anywhere in the world;
why is it any different to you because you hear of it in the US?

~~~
tehwalrus
Because they kill people at an astonishing rate compared to the rest of the
developed world: more people in a day than the UK in a year (and only having
about 6x the population).

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-
counted-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-
police-killings-us-vs-other-countries)

~~~
talmand
That's a completely different topic and problem though. There are several
reasons as to why such a difference happens. It's not that every police
shooting is because of police corruption.

edit: thank you for the link, it was an interesting article. Although, I think
many of the comparisons with the US are inherently flawed. It's still
interesting to see the stats.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Worth noting even if a shooting is 'justified' it doesn't mean you have to do
it. This also explains the gap, not just illegal shootings. The US police
appear to have a zero risk tolerence or desire to de-escalate.

------
gr3yh47
Please share this as much as you can on facebook, twitter, et al. While many
of us on HN are not surprised that this kind of thing happens, it's generally
hard to convince the public at large i.e. the crowd that gets all their news
from mainstream media.

This is the kind of thing that could 'wake up' another small slice of the
population that i.e. has 'nothing to hide' wrt NSA data collection etc.

~~~
jomamaxx
The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the
first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large.

Illegal or legal - someone carrying a gun in public trying to prod cops is
creating problems, not solving them.

If this guy was holding a sign out of a nuclear plant saying 'no more nukes'
and was unarmed, then it would be a different story I think.

In terms of public perception, I don't think this guy is going to win any
points among regular people.

~~~
cmdrfred
> The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the
> first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at
> large.

Corrected: The fact he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and trying to
inform citizens that their 4th amendment rights were about to be violated, is
not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large.

------
John23832
Without the ability to actually prosecute police for crimes committed, and to
give scrutiny to the stories told by officers, none of this will stop.

------
CaliforniaKarl
There's something that confuses me: If a lawsuit has actually been filed, then
there should be some sort of tracking number (case number, docket number,
etc.) associated with it. Why didn't the article have that number, so that
interested people could track the status of the case on their own?

------
talmand
"The second count is a Fourth Amendment claim: the seizure of Michael’s camera
without probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime, or a
warrant for its seizure. The police cannot grab people’s property and
confiscate it on a whim."

You would think the ACLU knows that this is not true at all. Police regularly
confiscate property on a daily basis with no cause. They have laws that allow
them to do this. It's usually cash but they have been known to take whatever
isn't nailed down. Some police departments apparently plan their budgets
around it.

~~~
zeveb
This is a neat example of what one's mother tried to teach one when asked,
'mom, can I have a cookie?' and she responded, 'yes, you _can_ , but you _may_
not!'

The facts clearly demonstrate that the police _can_ in fact confiscate
property on a whim. They _may_ not, under the Constitution. But who cares
about the Constitution? It's just a scrap of paper standing in the wave of our
Brave New World.

~~~
talmand
In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not.
Sometimes it just takes time for the topic to come before the Court to be
addressed.

~~~
zeveb
> In your analogy the Supreme Court would be the mother saying they may not.

That assumes that the Supreme Court will judge according to the Constitution,
which I think isn't borne out by case history.

It was the Supreme Court which said a black man couldn't be a citizen; that
wheat grown in one state and fed to cattle in the same state is involved in
interstate commerce; that the death penalty referred to in the Constitution is
unconstitutional; that taking property for private gain is a public taking;
and on, and on, and on.

~~~
talmand
I agree the Court can often be wrong in the long run, but that's the way our
system works at the moment.

------
spiraldancing
The thing to keep in mind, while reading this, is how many times does this
happen on a day-to-day basis, before you just happen to run into cops that are
too stupid to realize they are recording themselves while they do this?

------
1024core
I read somewhere that, at any given time as you go about your daily business,
you are guilty of breaking a couple of laws. This gives the police the power
to haul you away if they want to. The police look at it as a "weapon", just
like their baton or taser, to be used when the need arises. But unfortunately,
not everyone in blue is above reproach; there are plenty of bad apples, and
the situation is rife with abuse.

The sad part is: if you try to do away with these silly laws, the police
unions will be up in arms about it.

------
dahart
A lot of photographers I know carry the Photographer's Rights pamphlet FBO any
security guards or police that don't seem to know the law.

[http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm](http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

------
pklausler
I'm surprised that the thugs gave the camera back to the victim.

Lesson 1: smarter cops don't get caught.

Lesson 2: record the cops straight to the cloud.

ADDENDUM: For those in the US, consider installing your state's edition of the
ACLU Mobile Justice app on your smartphone.

------
JDiculous
The cops should be stripped of their badges and in jail on felony charges.

------
gravypod
I'd love if the judge throws out the evidence since they weren't in a single-
party recording state or that they weren't read their rights or something.
Would be funny.

------
burrows
At 2.15 in the video the cops realize that camera was on during their
discussion. Why did they not confiscate the tape?

~~~
7Z7
It's a DSLR, so when they noted that it was "still on", they probably just
assumed it was a stills camera, switched on (as in ready-to-take-pictures).

------
transfire
We really have crossed over into the USSA.

