A Yolo County judge threw out two cases and strongly rebuked sheriff’s deputies, in two unrelated cases that came before him in early June after videotaped evidence showed the deputies were being untruthful in their justifications for searches during traffic stops, according to court transcripts obtained by the Vanguard.
“What is really troublesome to the Court is the deputy’s misrepresentation in the incident report, which brings into question the deputy’s credibility from the get-go,” Judge David Rosenberg said in a court transcript from one of the cases, in granting a motion to suppress evidence that led to Deputy DA Jared Favero dismissing the case due to lack of evidence.
In the first case, the defendant’s consent to search was in dispute, with video evidence clearly showing that the defendant did not consent to search despite claims by the deputy that he had. In the second case, probation status was in dispute with the deputy clearly misinforming the defendants of the probation status, using it to unconstitutionally searching the vehicle.
“I think what is very troublesome to the Court is Deputy Hallenbeck’s flat out misrepresentation to the defendants. That is very troublesome to the Court,” Judge Rosenberg said in the second case. “Deputy Hallenbeck was informed that Ms. Myers is on probation, ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and yet he stated in no (un)certain terms on two or three occasions that we have a defendant who is on searchable probation and effectively used that as a bludgeon to intimidate the passengers.”
Judge Rosenberg continued, “He was told that there’s ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and the officer stated that she was on searchable probation.”
“It is clear that the defendant did not want the vehicle searched and didn’t hear any reason why the vehicle should be searched,” Judge Rosenberg said. “So that kind of conduct is just unacceptable to the Court. Citizens should not be treated that way.”
Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto spoke to the Vanguard on Monday morning, and, after becoming aware of the incidents, he vowed a full investigation.
The two cases heard on June 4 and June 6 were part of a string of cases where motions to suppress evidence were granted. However, in these two cases, the conduct by the sheriff’s deputies were particularly egregious as it was directly contradicted by video evidence.
June 4 Motion to Suppress
In the first case, heard by Judge Rosenberg on June 4, Deputy Del Castillo on February 20, 2013, conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle that had reportedly crossed over the fog line. When Deputy Del Castillo contacted the occupants, he believed the passenger was on searchable probation.
When he pat searched the driver for drugs, a bulge was felt in his left pant pocket which the Deputy recognized as a meth pipe. Inside the pipe was a plastic baggie containing 1.64 grams of meth.
However, Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt, in oral arguments, said that when the driver was asked to exit the vehicle, “the Fourth Amendment was triggered, and this motion was triggered, when Deputy Del Castillo pat searched (the driver) without reasonable cause.”
“I think the video and the facts of this case, the police report, do not show any reason why Mr. Lee, in particular, was believed to be armed and dangerous, which is the necessary test for a pat search,” Mr. Van Zandt would tell Judge Rosenberg.
The key here was that in his police report the deputy claimed the driver “consented to the pat search by saying the word ‘yes.’ ” The word is in quotes in the police report.
Mr. Van Zandt maintained that “when you look at the dash cam video with sound, clearly that’s not the case. There was no equivalent of ‘yes’ being uttered by Mr. Lee.”
Nevertheless, a pat search proceeded, and that was an unconstitutional search, Mr. Van Zandt would argue. Deputy Del Castillo would learn that, in fact, the passenger was not on probation either. Despite learning this from dispatch that neither passenger was on probation, and despite the driver’s clear lack of consent to search the vehicle, the deputy proceeded to conduct a probation search of the car.
Mr. Favero would attempt to argue that the passenger did initially tell the deputy that she was on searchable probation.
“I don’t believe he has an obligation to wait for Dispatch to come back and confirm that when somebody tells them that they are, so he began with that belief, good faith belief,” he argued.
The driver, he argued, had a bulge in his left front pant pocket that the Deputy spotted.
He argued, “That, coupled with the fact that this was someone who he believed was a probationer, searchable probationer, and potential illegal drugs in the car, we know from the case law that drugs and weapons often go hand in hand. Seeing this bulge, I believe the officer searched for his own safety.”
Mr. Favero would concede that the driver said no, but argued, “Although he did say ‘no,’ the officer in this case was searching for purposes of officer protection.”
Richard Van Zandt would counter that, if the pocket had been the area of concern, why would the deputy not search there first? “If he was that concerned about that particular pocket, he would have searched that first,” he argued.
Judge Rosenberg said he was “very troubled by the deputy’s actions,” and granted the motion to suppress.
“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement conduct that violates the Constitution,” he said.
The initial stop, he said, was justified despite the relatively minor traffic violation involved.
The court noted that the passenger had indicated that she was on probation but turned out to be mistaken. He said that is not “the real concern of the court here.” He continued to note that the passenger was completely cooperative with the deputy, as was the defendant.
However, once the defendant was out of the car, the court found that the pat search “was not undertaken with sufficient cause.”
“There’s no basis for a pat search unless there’s something which would indicate that the defendant was dangerous or armed. There is nothing indicated in the video of that nature,” Judge Rosenberg argued.
“What is really troublesome to the Court is the incident report where the deputy states, quote, I asked if I could search him, ‘him’ being the defendant, for weapons, and he said, quote, yes, end of quote,” the judge continued. However the driver “never said yes. There was no affirmation. There was no consent given.”
The defendant earlier said he did not consent to a search of the vehicle.
“What is really troublesome to the Court is the deputy’s misrepresentation in the incident report, which brings into question the deputy’s credibility from the get-go,” Judge David Rosenberg said as he granted the motion to suppress. The evidence was suppressed and Mr. Favero dismissed the case.
June 6 Preliminary Hearing and Motion to Suppress
The second hearing, just two days later, involved a far more complicated series of events. On December 9, 2012, two Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputies, Dugonjic and Hallenback, noticed a vehicle driving in the number two lane on northbound 1-5 south of Zamora, traveling at about 73 to 75 miles per hour in a posted 70 miles per hour zone.
Deputy Dugonjic observed the vehicle make an abrupt lane change. After the abrupt lane change, the vehicle came within approximately one car length from the rear of the vehicle in front of it. While following the vehicle, Deputy Dugonjic noticed it drift about 12 to 15 inches across the divider line between the number one and number two lanes. The deputies then proceeded to stop the vehicle on 1-5 north, north of County Road 13.
Dispatch reportedly informed the deputies that the passenger was on searchable probation. Deputy Hallenback during the stop noticed that the driver’s “pupils were dilated and had little reaction to indirect light from the flashlight, which Deputy Hallenback recognized as a common sign of recent drug use.”
According to the Deputy DA Jared Favero’s account, “Hallenback informed (the driver) that (the passenger) was on searchable probation. When he asked (the driver) if he could search the car, she never gave him a straight answer as to whether she gave him consent or not. (The driver) never told Deputy Hallenback if he could search the vehicle or if he could not search the vehicle. Hallenback searched the vehicle based on (the passenger’s) probation status.”
Then Mr. Favero continues in his motion, “When Hallenback asked (the passenger) if there was anything illegal in the car, (the passenger) told him that there was marijuana in an orange container in the vehicle. Hallenback found the marijuana in the orange container on the center console.”
“(The passenger) confirmed that this was what she was referring to. Upon a further search of the passenger side of the vehicle, Deputy Hallenback noticed that the ash tray in the center console was raised up. Upon removing the ash tray, he found a brown faux-leather pouch containing a methamphetamine smoking pipe, a small zip-lock bag of methamphetamine, and a business card with (the driver) ‘s name on it hidden by the ash try (sic) in the center console,” the DA’s account continued.
At this point, Deputy Hallenback advised the passenger of her rights and she admitted to smoking meth from the pipe in the car earlier that day.
Deputy Hallenback testified on the stand, “I learned through our dispatch center that (the passenger) was on searchable probation out of Shasta County for a transportation of methamphetamine.”
He would later say, “Once we learned that (the passenger) was on probation, we requested them to come out and speak with us.” He added, “I never contacted Shasta County itself, but I relied on our dispatch center to make that notification to us.”
Under cross-examination from Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt, Deputy Hallenback said, “She stated that she believed she was off (probation).”
He would later state, “I know our dispatch center advised me she was on probation out of Shasta County. She said she was not. The particulars of that conversation I don’t recall.”
He acknowledged that the defendant had advised him more than once she was no longer on probation.
He also noted numerous times in his report about the passenger being on searchable probation.
However, when they played the dispatch tape, it became clear that Deputy Hallenback was informed that there was “no reference to searchable status” on the probation.
As Mr. Van Zante argued during his summation, “The good faith exception does not allow the officers to have selective hearing, and that’s what happened in this case.”
Judge Rosenberg ruled that the initial stop “was justified based on the officer’s observations, the totality of what he observed.”
The vehicle was going above the speed limit, “albeit not very much above the speed limit.” It was drifting across the center lane and made an abrupt movement.
Judge Rosenberg told the court, “The officer described it as a pattern of erratic driving. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t, but certainly enough to justify the officer pulling the vehicle over to the side of the road.”
As previously stated, Judge Rosenberg then strongly rebuked the officer: “I think what is very troublesome to the Court is Deputy Hallenbeck’s flat out misrepresentation to the defendants. That is very troublesome to the Court.”
The judge continued, “Deputy Hallenbeck was informed that Ms. Myers is on probation, ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and yet he stated in no (un)certain terms on two or three occasions that we have a defendant who is on searchable probation and effectively used that as a bludgeon to intimidate the passengers.”
DA Larry Eichele tried to argue that the judge’s words were “inappropriate” and that from the video “[i]t was windy” and “I believe the officer honestly heard ‘searchable probation.’ “
The judge responded, “I have to believe the officer heard what Dispatch told him because after they finished he said “copy.” He didn’t say ‘Huh?’ He didn’t say ‘repeat,’ or didn’t use some other – I can’t just assume he misheard.”
As stated above, the judge said, “He was told that there’s ‘no reference to searchable status,’ and the officer stated that she was on searchable probation.”
“It is clear that the defendant did not want the vehicle searched and didn’t hear any reason why the vehicle should be searched,” Judge Rosenberg said. “So that kind of conduct is just unacceptable to the Court. Citizens should not be treated that way.”
The judge wasn’t done. “Having the vehicle impounded is not flying with the court,” Judge Rosenberg continued. “I am not convinced there wasn’t a way to get another driver there to move the vehicle.”
Judge Rosenberg continued, “The most troublesome aspect to the Court is the permission, if you call it that, given by (the passenger) in the sense that there might be marijuana in the car. “
“I think at the point of time when she said ‘there might, there might not be, I am not sure, but I do have a prescription,’ it seems to me that at that point in time it is reasonable under California law for the officer to have asked, ‘well, can I see the card? Can I see the recommendation?’ and I didn’t hear or see that having been asked under the circumstances,” Judge Rosenberg stated.
He said, “It just appeared to the Court that much of this was pretextual so that the officer could get into the vehicle to search it.”
With that, Judge Rosenberg dismissed the case, citing insufficient evidence to believe that the defendants are guilty of the offense.
Two completely unrelated cases were thrown out the first week of June by Judge Rosenberg, and in both cases, the deputy’s testimony or incident report was directly contradicted by video and audio evidence.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What charges were filed against these people?
It is sad, but hardly surprising to see these kinds of deceptions being used by our police officers. I recently had the opportunity to have a conversation about the approved use of police deliberately lying to suspects in order to extract confessions or other information with one of our law enforcement officials. He defended the policy as a necessary means to obtain information and stated that it was rarely if ever misused.
If we are willing to have police lie to suspects in order to obtain what the officer perceives as “necessary information” is it really surprising that officers would interpret or twist this “license to lie” to apply to other situations in which they would like to obtain evidence either through personal or vehicular searches ?
And if they are willing to do that, why would they not choose to falsify written reports, or evidence given during trial ? I suggest that these two incidents demonstrate that this is not as “rare” an event as was implied in our conversation.
Both were possession cases
you say they (law enforcement officers) were caught in a lie, including spoken in Court. Therefore they should lose their jobs, forfeit all credits for retirement benefits, AND be charged with perjury and serve their time in the ‘general population”.
“If we are willing to have police lie to suspects in order to obtain what the officer perceives as “necessary information” is it really surprising that officers would interpret or twist this “license to lie” to apply to other situations in which they would like to obtain evidence either through personal or vehicular searches ?”
This is a difficult question to which to respond because if the assumption you offer up. You provide no evidence that anyone “interprets or twists” the long-accepted investigation tool in order to get to lying on official reports, in court or to their mothers. Why would you assume a connection?
One of the practices you list is illegal.
“I suggest that these two incidents demonstrate that this is not as “rare” an event as was implied in our conversation.”
The fact that we have two cases of illegal practices reported here doesn’t demonstrate anything about the rarity of use of the legal and accepted practice. There is no connection between the two issues.
They both deserve to be fired and prosecuted. I hear the D.A in Yolo is “tough on crime”; however, when it comes to law enforcement, that remains to be seen.
I agree with Tecnichick that they “both deserve to be fired and prosecuted.”
but …
I also agree with JustSaying that there is “no connection” between telling a drug dealer that his partner just plead guilty to lying on the stand (I don’t think that guys that tell their wives that they “don’t look fat in those jeans” will lie under oath any more than (soon to be single) guys that say “you look as fat as Rosanne Barr in those jeans”…
I just read the post below on a Blog and it reminds me that we can’t have different rules for “government” and “regular people”.
Anyone that lies on the stand should go to jail (cops should not get a “free pass”) just like anyone involved in breaking prostitution laws should go to jail (governors should not get a free pass)…
The day after former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced his campaign for city comptroller, he was issued a direct challenge for the post by a woman who says she was the madam who supplied him with escorts.
Self-described “ex-madam” Kristin Davis used Spitzer’s campaign to once again announce her already-declared candidacy for comptroller on Monday.
“Eliot Spitzer broke state and federal laws in his use of prostitutes and paid no penalty; I broke the law and paid my debt to society,” Davis, who served four months in prison, said in a statement. “There cannot be two standards of justice, one for the average citizen and another for the political and social elite.”
Funny to have Judge David Rosenberg, rebuke this “troubling” unethical conduct, by these dubious “sworn to protect & serve deputies” when Judge Rosenberg, himself has likely engaged in much more troubling conduct on the bench.
What Judge Rosenberg is likely rebuking was not the deputies conduct per se, but that they got busted. Now every criminal case involving these deputies should be reviewed—where there’s smoke….
See, our most Honorable former county supervisor, turned judicial officer, David Rosenberg, (allegedly) used his position on the bench to thwart an investigation via the grand jury on Judge Donna Petre and then county council, now juvenile judge, Steve Basha’s appointment of chief probation officer, Don Meyers, out from under a falsified criminal investigation with foster youth.
In fact, Yolo used all they had to suppress any investigation and Rosenberg was likely ground center in the cover-up.
Fact is, if Yolo had an ethical functioning criminal justice system, Judge David Rosenberg, would be tending to some institutional garden instead of schooling these unqualified public servants.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Judges, prosecutors and court commissioners are public officers. They are not above the law; no one is above the law. Unfortunately, prosecutors, county government lawyers and judges often misinform grand jurors and tell them that the grand jury “has no jurisdiction to investigate judges or courts”, but such a statement would simply be not true.
If a judge were to shoot and kill some one with a gun from his bench during a trial, would you say that the grand jury has no jurisdiction to charge the judge with murder just because he was a judge and committed the crime while performing a judicial function?
Clearly the grand jury has jurisdiction to charge such a judge with murder, and as outlined above, it would be the grand jurors legal duty to do so. In fact, grand jurors have repeatedly charged judges for crimes while acting as a judge. Indictments that have led to conviction and imprisonment of the accused judge
Take a look at People v. Hardeman, 224 C.A.2d 1 (1966), in which a judge was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice among other convictions. Also see People v. Martin, 135 Cal. App.3d 710 (1982), where an L.A. Judge and an attorney friend of him were indicted by the Grand Jury for Conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice (same charge as the accused in this complaint are accused of), convicted (which was upheld in the appeal) and sentenced to State Prison the same as an ordinary citizen.
Please take a close look also at the case of Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 C.2d 49 (1950), where the California Supreme Court ruled on page59 and 60 of the case that “A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice an indictable offense at common law.” This means that if judges deliberately fail to report criminal violation by other, such as judges, as they are required by California Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3D, the silent judge just joined a conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice.
If this happened as documented here this doesn’t sound good. The ends do not justify the means.
Finally, the failure of the Yolo Grand Jury to act lawfully through the years, is not only because the court misinforms and redirects the GJ from alleged criminal conduct of public officials(e.g. Judge Donna Petre, Judge Steve Basha). Yolo also has the district attorney & county council (e.g. Dave Hendersen, Jeffy Reisig and county council, Steve Basha & the BOS) “infecting” the GJ’s ability to investigate any Yolo public official.
The connection between these deputies and the grand jury is to enunciate the inability of public servants to police one another. These pathological behaviors are evident in every level of government in Yolo.
It’s a slam dunk! Yolo county has two criminal playbooks and these deputies will be “protected.” Judge Rosenberg, is too compromised to hold these deputies criminally accountable. Perjury? Think Reisig will file charges & prosecute?
=====================[url]http://jurypower.org/grand-jury-power-mainmenu-29/grand-jury-power-to-charge-corruptcriminal-public-officials-mainmenu-31.html[/url]
The court clearly concluded that the grand jury is free and independent in indicting the accuseds without approval or concurrence of the District Attorney. Recently a California Court of Appeal in the Case of Bradley v. Lacey, 53 Cal.App4th 883 (March 25, 1997), concluded this about Grand Jury’s powers: “It is apparent from the foregoing description of the grand jury’s powers with respect to public offenses that it is not the mere handmaid of the district attorney…. The decision whether or not to indict, to initiate a criminal prosecution, resides entirely with the grand jury.”
People are going to learn about the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights (POBR). So first, we will never learn what happens to the officers. Second, the Sheriff will never be able to make a statement.
David, wasn’t there are least one case in the past where the DA prosecuted perjury and arrested someone on the stand or just getting off the stand?
The DA’s office must have listened to the tapes before they determined to move forward and prosecute these cases. Where are the checks to the system? Yes, it is extremely troubling that the officers lied but it is despicable that the prosecutors knew they lied and still wanted to go forward with the case. Is this what they mean by “Cash for Convictions”?
Some follow up thoughts, I haven’t seen the transcript or the motions, but it seems to me that Rosenberg didn’t have to toss out the evidence in the second case, there seemed a minimal level of probable cause for the search. You have the dilated eyes and marginally erratic driving. It seems like he was probably trying to sign a message.
I’m not sure what Jake Wallace’s beef is with Rosenberg. His post reads like gibberish and is way out of any context that anyone unfamiliar with whatever his beef could comprehend.
Deceptive practices by law enforcement are common when considering a lifestyle set up as an undercover agent. In John Irwin’s book “The Jail. Managing the Underclass in American Society” he was given access to many areas of the criminal justice system. It would seem that the practice of lying is common to not only illicit information but to also cover yourself when back pedaling a decision to arrest or prosecute. I do not believe all law enforcement is bad, but those that feel entitled to win at all costs even when the charge is bogus.
I do not believe all law enforcement is bad, but those that feel entitled to win at all costs even when the charge is bogus make all officers suspect. Bad for the department and bad for the community they serve.
Like Themis I am concerned about the role of the DA in this. The first case not so much. They acknowledged the deputy’s error, but tried to argue for reasonable cause. That’s fair enough.
The second case is a problem with Eichele attempting to shrug off the Deputy’s “error” as inadvertent by claiming it was windy. Rosenberg didn’t let him off the hook. That’s why they use terms like “copy” or “repeat” to acknowledge they understood. Based on the Deputy’s use of the word “copy” there is no way you can assume that he failed to hear.
The question I have is whether Hallenback believed it when he kept repeating it both to the subjects on the scene and in the courtroom, or really did believe he had heard something else?
That does make a difference from the standpoint of his conduct, but not for the motion to suppress.
It’s interesting we have two cases of very minor traffic offenses ending up as drug stops based on very questionable evidence. How often does this actually happen in this county?
So the “victims” were both guilty of possession of illegal pipes and drugs?
How about some material punishment for ignoring the rules for lawful search and then lying about it, and then a reward for their accuracy of judgment in suspicion?
Why don’t you want protections against police lying to you and illegally searching your person or property?
BTW, you say their accuracy of judgment – they are basically phishing.
I do, that is why I recommend punishment.
But also I think they should be rewarded for their accurate suspicion.
The lesson should be…
“Respect your trained suspicions, but find a way to bust the law-breaker without breaking the rules and lying about it.”
To me that’s just rewarding police for misconduct and dishonesty. The only way to protect innocent people (and the rights of the accused) is to come down hard on such cases and if it means someone with minor possession charges gets away with it, then so be it.
[i]BTW, you say their accuracy of judgment – they are basically phishing.[/i]
No, phishing is casting a net without knowing if there will be fish. These officers acted on suspicion that turned out to be accurate. Police are trained, experienced and paid to act on suspicion. We count on them to prevent crime as well as capture those that are suspected of having committed or are in the act of committing a crime. It is our judicial that has to decide if an actual crime was committed and what the punishment should be. The cops are just supposed to collect the people that they suspect as committing a crime.
There’s not training involved here. They pulled over people who were marginally breaking the law and used illegal means to search them without any probable cause to believe that they had broken the law. They probably did this ten times the same day and every day since and found nothing, so we know nothing about it. The only reason they got caught here is that this time they found something and it got recorded.
[i]people who were marginally breaking the law [/i]
Interesting choice of words.
I guess it is okay then if the cops “marginally break the law”.
You would have a much stronger argument if the “victims” were truly victims and not just people caught breaking the law in possession of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
You completely missed my point. You are talking about pulling over a driver going 70 to 75 in a 65 zone and driving up on someone’s tale before making a quick lane change and somehow inferring from that they are on drugs? It’s a minor transgression and the officer then asserts that they are on searchable probation when they are not in order to effect the search of the vehicle. Point in question isn’t that the law was broken, it’s whether the deputy did anything other than phish for a car and happen to find drugs.
BTW, I consider the victims here to be the citizens of Yolo County not necessarily the people in the car.
I think you are discounting the nuances of suspicion. Driving all the time on patrol, you might notice eye contact, body language and certain driving actions that cause you suspicion based on experience. It might not be explainable because it may be a queue from your subconscious developed with training and experience. Peak performance generally derives when the performer is not thinking about what to do, but just does it naturally. It is a form of judgment and muscle memory. As it relates to law enforcement, you don’t have it. I don’t have it. But many cops have it. The good ones have more of it. It is the good stuff and we should reward it. However, we should not reward breaking the rules.
Listen, if you are suspected and pulled over and found innocent and there was no probable cause for you being pulled over, either you can thank the officer for doing his job and confirming his suspicion, or you can submit a complaint and/or hire an attorney to sue for damages. However, if you are caught breaking the law, then I say you got caught breaking the law. The same goes for cops.
It is not a game where you get to complain that the cops didn’t play fairly so you lost out of that high probability of not being caught breaking the law.
I’m sorry the constitution doesn’t guarantee you freedom from unreasonable searches unless you’re guilty.
This isn’t a good faith exemption here. the officer lied. There’s not even good faith.
Radley Balko’s book was released for sale today: “Rise of the Warrior Cop, the Militarization of America’s Police Forces”.
Highly recommended by Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, Arianna Huffington, Anthony Romero.
[quote]The fact that we have two cases of illegal practices reported here doesn’t demonstrate anything about the rarity of use of the legal and accepted practice. There is no connection between the two issues.[/quote]
I agree with you that it does not “demonstrate anything….” Perhaps a better choice of words would have been “suggests”. However I do believe that there is definitely a connection between the issues.
What I am suggesting is that allow or even encouraging lying in certain situations tends to validate a culture of dishonesty within the police department. Part of my concept of effective policing would include providing a model of desirable behavior. Lying to achieve your identified goal is not, in my opinion, modeling desired behavior.
“What I am suggesting is that allow or even encouraging lying in certain situations tends to validate a culture of dishonesty within the police department. Part of my concept of effective policing would include providing a model of desirable behavior.”
I realize what you’re suggesting, and I understand that you do not approve of any lie by police officers. But the differences between the interrogation lies and illegal lying are so enormous that it’s difficult to understand how you can attribute any carryover.
If one starts with a view that there’s “a culture of dishonesty within the police department,” it’s easy to attribute it to most any bad thing that comes along. If one thinks police strive to maintain high levels of honesty and integrity, it’s easy to realize that bad acts aren’t encouraged or validated by using the technique.
Police are not children or borderline deviants who cannot understand wrong from right or who are just waiting for a signal to start engaging In illegal behavior.
If David’s report if accurate and complete, I’d guess the judge is expecting an investigation and appropriate action to be taken to assure that there’s not a repeat of this kind of police misrepresentation in reporting. I’d think the DA’s office and sheriff also would be working to assure the same–hardly trying to encourage the kind of untruths or misleading reporting that gets cases thrown out.
I can imagine your conversation with the officer, trying to get you to appreciate the setting in which investigators try to get perpetrators to understand that confession is good for the guilty person’s self interests as well as for their soul. What damage is done if the guilty party is misled with investigators’ lies about the extent of evidence already collected against him?
The objective is to determine who committed a crime; the best witness is the perpetrator himself. Who can better direct investigators to the proof that establishes how own guilt? If this evidence is used to convict him (or, as in most cases, used in developing a plea bargain that results in punishment that is less severe than the guilty person likely would have received if he’d not confessed and had been convicted instead).
This practice has a long history of occasional use with little abuse and has been tested by the courts for fairness to defendants, to society and to justice. There’s lying and there’s lying.
JustSaying
[quote]department,” it’s easy to attribute it to most any bad thing that comes along. If one thinks police strive to maintain high levels of honesty and integrity, it’s easy to realize that bad acts aren’t encouraged or validated by using the technique.
Police are not children or borderline deviants who cannot understand wrong from right or who are just waiting for a signal to start engaging In illegal behavior.
[/quote]
I agree that police are not children or borderline deviants ….
I also know that they are not paragons of virtue who will only lie for honorable purposes. Police are human beings like all the rest of us and are subject to all of the same impulses and temptations as the rest of us.I believe that if lying is considered acceptable as a technique to gain information, it is a very small stretch to believe that it might also be appropriate to secure a conviction that an officer believes is warranted because he “knows” that the accused is guilty. The problem with this premise is that we as a society have chosen to presume innocence until proven guilty….not guilt because the policeman believes ( even with all his heart) in the guilt of an individual.
[quote]What damage is done if the guilty party is misled with investigators’ lies about the extent of evidence already collected against him?
[/quote]
Perhaps not much the way you have phrased it. However, a great deal of harm is done if the accused party is actually innocent and is so scared that they are willing to confess in order to “get a better deal” or because they rightfully believe that the public defender ( especially for people who cannot afford to hire
“the best” ) will not be able to secure a not guilty verdict even though they are innocent.
[quote]I understand that you do not approve of any lie by police officers. [/quote]
You misunderstand me on this point. The example that the officer used was “Would I oppose lying in the case of a kidnapping where the victims life was at stake and the officers felt that a lie would trick the
suspect into revealing their location”. My response to this would be that I feel a lie would be warranted just as I believe that it would be appropriate to lie and state that there were no “Jews hidden in the house”
to a Nazi. I do believe that there are rare instances when lies may be appropriate to save lives or prevent injury. I do not believe that they are ever appropriate outside of these extreme settings.