PDA

View Full Version : S.F. cops' pasts could jeopardize convictions


Ladyfox
05-04-2010, 12:05 PM
Source: SFGate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/04/MNJ71CTL6A.DTL

"Under the law, prosecutors are responsible for alerting defense attorneys when any witness, including a police officer, has been arrested or convicted for a broad range of crimes, or accused of misconduct for such disciplinary offenses as lying during internal affairs interviews. Police officers can keep their jobs even if they have been convicted of misdemeanors, but their histories must be disclosed so defense lawyers have the opportunity to discredit their testimony on the basis of their character."

Further into the article...

"Misdemeanors: Convictions or arrests for the following crimes must be disclosed: criminal accessory after the fact, arson, assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, auto theft, battery on a peace officer, auto or commercial burglary, contributing to delinquency of a minor, child abuse, evading a police officer, domestic violence, forgery, grand theft, receiving stolen property, indecent exposure, making criminal threats."

Now, just from this Misdemeanor list the following offenses are listed under the Persons Convicted of Misdemeanor Violations of Specified Offenses section that fall under Penal Code 12021(c)(1)):

Arson (Penal Code sections 12001.6 and 12021.1)
assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Penal Code 245.)
domestic violence (Penal Code 273.5.)

There is something seriously wrong here and while I'm sure the argument will be posed where these are "just a few bad apples in every bucket" I have to ask why there are still bad apples in the bucket to begin with?

POLICESTATE
05-04-2010, 12:11 PM
Source: SFGate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/04/MNJ71CTL6A.DTL

"Under the law, prosecutors are responsible for alerting defense attorneys when any witness, including a police officer, has been arrested or convicted for a broad range of crimes, or accused of misconduct for such disciplinary offenses as lying during internal affairs interviews. Police officers can keep their jobs even if they have been convicted of misdemeanors, but their histories must be disclosed so defense lawyers have the opportunity to discredit their testimony on the basis of their character."

Further into the article...

"Misdemeanors: Convictions or arrests for the following crimes must be disclosed: criminal accessory after the fact, arson, assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, auto theft, battery on a peace officer, auto or commercial burglary, contributing to delinquency of a minor, child abuse, evading a police officer, domestic violence, forgery, grand theft, receiving stolen property, indecent exposure, making criminal threats."

Now, just from this Misdemeanor list the following offenses are listed under the Persons Convicted of Misdemeanor Violations of Specified Offenses section that fall under Penal Code 12021(c)(1)):

Arson (Penal Code sections 12001.6 and 12021.1)
assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Penal Code 245.)
domestic violence (Penal Code 273.5.)

There is something seriously wrong here and while I'm sure the argument will be posed where these are "just a few bad apples in every bucket" I have to ask why there are still bad apples in the bucket to begin with?

Arson is a misdemeanor? Assault with a deadly weapon is a misdemeanor? I can understand the domestic violence, LEOs don't always have the best marriages :rolleyes: (and I should know)

berto
05-04-2010, 12:27 PM
Kamala Harris, the SF DA, is running for AG on the dem side.

bwiese
05-04-2010, 12:57 PM
Yup.

And there's a dozen (? ++) SF LEOs with reprimands for AW violations back around 2000. They weren't charged, but evidence exists that there was felony conduct for a period of time.

madmike
05-04-2010, 1:03 PM
Am I the only one that finds it troubling that Police officers are apparently still employed as such after being convicted of trivial little things like "criminal accessory after the fact, arson, assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, auto theft, battery on a peace officer, auto or commercial burglary, contributing to delinquency of a minor, child abuse, evading a police officer, domestic violence, forgery, grand theft, receiving stolen property, indecent exposure, making criminal threats."
This bothers me.

-madmike.

AJAX22
05-04-2010, 1:04 PM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

a1c
05-04-2010, 1:08 PM
The SFPD needs a major cleanup. And Kamala Harris and her minions needs to go. She's turned that office even more political that it was before she arrived.

nn3453
05-04-2010, 1:10 PM
Yup.

And there's a dozen (? ++) SF LEOs with reprimands for AW violations back around 2000. They weren't charged, but evidence exists that there was felony conduct for a period of time.

Any way this information can be obtained and/or made available to the public?

OlderThanDirt
05-04-2010, 1:11 PM
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Well, the lunatics already run the asylum (Legislature), so I guess only the lowly sheeple are left to watch.

Barabas
05-04-2010, 1:22 PM
I was going to say something about the civilian Ombudsman, but it doesn't appear that SFPD has one. Weird.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

AJAX22
05-04-2010, 1:50 PM
Well, the lunatics already run the asylum (Legislature), so I guess only the lowly sheeple are left to watch.

I have an idea for how to go about that... but I need to refine it a bit before I post about it ;)

I think its possible to shine the light of truth on some of the dirt that has been allowed to flourish in obscurity.

bulgron
05-04-2010, 3:04 PM
The irony is that they won't let me walk around with a firearm in public because I'm not trustworthy enough, or some such rot, but its perfectly okay for guys who commit arson, assault with a deadly weapon, etc, to walk around with a gun because, presumably THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE are trustyworth just because they have a badge. :rolleyes::eek::whistling::ack2::kest:

GuyW
05-04-2010, 3:29 PM
San Francisco....the New Orleans of the Pacific..
.

dfletcher
05-04-2010, 7:21 PM
Kamala Harris, the SF DA, is running for AG on the dem side.

And I expect that is why this sort of thing is coming out a most propitious moment. Not that there's anything wrong with that ..... ;)

I bet there's more to come as the election comes near.

tyrist
05-04-2010, 7:55 PM
Only a few on that list are even misdemeanors.

anthonyca
05-04-2010, 7:59 PM
Yup.

And there's a dozen (? ++) SF LEOs with reprimands for AW violations back around 2000. They weren't charged, but evidence exists that there was felony conduct for a period of time.

What ever became of your quest to build a database of LEOs with AWs?

Socalz
05-04-2010, 8:25 PM
Source: SFGate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/04/MNJ71CTL6A.DTL

"Under the law, prosecutors are responsible for alerting defense attorneys when any witness, including a police officer, has been arrested or convicted for a broad range of crimes, or accused of misconduct for such disciplinary offenses as lying during internal affairs interviews.


I think you guys may have missed something here.

Beatone
05-04-2010, 9:31 PM
Kamala Harris seems to be a real piece of work. She fits right in with the wackiness that is San Francisco politics.

SJgunguy24
05-04-2010, 10:04 PM
I had a cop tell me flat out he'll get my gun no matter what. It was his choice if I kept it or not. I asked him if he was so willing to violate my rights what else was he willing to do. The oath he took when he was sworn in as a peace officer says he will uphold the constitution of the US and California. That oath obviously means nothing to him so why would any sworn testimony in a court of law be trustworthy.

Tyrist, Unit74, SOCalDep, RonSolo, Topgun7, all the other LEO's on CGN, you guy's are stand up people but too many in your ranks are willing to throw the reputation of the good honest LEO's under the bus.

Cops are the example of the law, not the exception.

duldej
05-05-2010, 10:31 AM
in 1974 there was a case that was a civil lawsuit in los angeles where a plaintiff by the name of pitchess sued the superior court because of police misconduct that i think led to a false arrest.
i think that pitchess (1974) involved police brutality where the sheriff's deputies involved in the arrest had an abusive past.
hence the pitchess motion of today that's permitted by evidence codes sections 1103 and 1105.
to wit and looking over bp codes sections 7520 that pertains to private investigators only a felony conviction spells real trouble for the public officer and a misdemeanor is par for the course.
los angeles county lasd has offices devoted solely (since pitchess 1974) to pitchess motion officer misconduct records and is distinct from ordinary bureaus that are in lasd and that you will target requisitioning for instance an incident report that is handled, i think, at the civil courthouse.

HokeySon
05-05-2010, 11:30 AM
to anyone who thinks this is jut a political thing or not a big deal, I ask you: would you want to be a defendant in a court where your lawyer could not find out basic information about the officer that arrested you like whether he has a history of misconduct or conviction record?

All of this information is "private" for leos, but not for other follks. So the only way that a defendant can get this basic information is to make a "pitchess motion," then a judge decides if you should be allowed to find this stuff out, but before the judge turns it over, he or she is going to conduct an in camera review, to see if in the judges opinion, the information will help you. Then, after all those hoops you get to look at it. But that is no good if the DA, who is responsible for turning this information over, does not obtain the information from the police department, who is responsible for maintaining it.

In sum, this is real problem .... on every level. Its not just political and it cannot be justified ... on any level.

Also, the City is ultimately responsible for responding to the subpoena that triggers the pitchess process so this sandwich is big enough for everyone to take a bite of.

BigDogatPlay
05-05-2010, 1:23 PM
The Pitchess Motion is named for the former six term Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Peter J. Pitchess. (http://www.badgehistory.com/pitchess_bio.html) He was a former FBI agent, and a lawyer as well.

Call me the whore with a heart of gold, but on my planet lying to the investigators in an IA is grounds for a separate personnel action that should result in termination. After all, if a cop is going to lie in that forum it's not a hard stretch to make to infer that he would lie on a report or on the stand.

That kind of behavior is not acceptable. Ever.

anniepoks
05-05-2010, 8:30 PM
I had a cop tell me flat out he'll get my gun no matter what. It was his choice if I kept it or not. I asked him if he was so willing to violate my rights what else was he willing to do. The oath he took when he was sworn in as a peace officer says he will uphold the constitution of the US and California. That oath obviously means nothing to him so why would any sworn testimony in a court of law be trustworthy.

Tyrist, Unit74, SOCalDep, RonSolo, Topgun7, all the other LEO's on CGN, you guy's are stand up people but too many in your ranks are willing to throw the reputation of the good honest LEO's under the bus.

Cops are the example of the law, not the exception.

+1!

chuckdc
05-06-2010, 2:08 AM
Besides Pitchess, there are also the Giglio and Henthorne cases, allowing defendants to go looking through personnel files of LEOs as well.

PEBKAC
05-06-2010, 3:56 AM
And there's a dozen (? ++) SF LEOs with reprimands for AW violations back around 2000. They weren't charged, but evidence exists that there was felony conduct for a period of time.
...only reprimands?

:mad:

big red
05-06-2010, 10:16 PM
In 1969 I was invited to come out from my MP battalion to pass the SF physical and physical test and join the department for an early out from the Army. They had 110 positions and one hundred of us showed up. Ninety of us went back to Fort Bragg after turning down their offer. When I went to college I applied at Sacramento department and walked away from it as well. There were good cops but the bad ones seemed to control everything and the good ones just "did" their jobs and minded their own business. See no evil, hear, no evil, and try not to do any evil was their stance from what I could tell. I doubt SFPD has changed any since 1969. Sacramento seems to have cleaned up their act some but I could be wrong. In those days in the Army being a MP honor if you did your whole time as one. The problem was you could not make a career of it and sooner or later you were transferred elsewhere. Now it is different.