Tumgik
#us policing
cock-holliday · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
The most maddening class I took in law school was Wrongful Convictions, which went in-depth into
1. The coercive, abusive and purposefully misleading “interrogation” process for suspects
2. The pseudoscience of a number of forensic science categories used to convict people, including “signs a suspect is lying” and hair analysis; and
3. The nearly impossible challenge of freeing someone even when it is PROVEN that they are innocent
The American “justice” system is infinitely more fucked up than you can imagine. For every horrorshow act you get exposed to, there’s a very good chance you’ll be greeted with a “but wait! There’s more!”
597 notes · View notes
mysharona1987 · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
441 notes · View notes
corporationsarepeople · 7 months
Text
She was right to stay in the car. They likely would’ve killed her either way. It’s what they were there for.
63 notes · View notes
anbarelectrum · 2 years
Text
Things You Should Know About: Being Detained by the Police in the United States!
Hey, have a long-ass post about how The System “works”.  Just a fun little trivia post, a thought experiment with you as a hypothetical police detainee, to take everyone’s mind off recent events.  And since that’s just...so fun, please consider reblogging this so we can share the fun around!
...
...So anyway, buckle up, folks; I wouldn’t call this an exhaustive guide to knowing and protecting your rights in police custody, but it’s still gonna be a long one.  Under the cut, I’ll be going over:
how to know when you’re considered by law to be in police custody
your rights against self-incrimination, when they must be read to you, what happens when they aren’t read to you, and when the cops can get away with that
legal representation (which you always want) as well as how and when (always) to acquire it (the answer is always)
what police can and cannot do in an interrogation per the law
resources for pursuing legal information and/or aid, especially useful for before you’re taken into custody or after you’ve been either convicted or released
A reminder before clicking any links I’ve provided that your data is never safe, and if the state gets hold of it, it could be used as evidence against you.  While none of the resources I’ve linked to should raise any red flags or be legally considered incriminating, your data is still admissible evidence, and you should always be mindful of that.  Better safe than sorry--take steps to secure your data!
What is Police Custody?
Legally speaking, you are in police custody if the police have deprived you of your freedom of action in any significant way.  This sounds vague, but that’s actually good for you!  Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be under arrest to be in police custody.
To determine whether you are legally in police custody, most courts apply the reasonable person standard.  This is done by asking a simple question: would any given reasonable person in your situation have felt free to leave?  This site has good tips on how to determine the answer to that question.
If you are in any doubt that you are being detained, ask if you are being detained.  If the police say “no”, you are free to leave, and you should do so before they change their minds.  If it’s perfectly clear that you’re being detained, still ask if you are being detained, because then they can’t argue that you weren’t in custody later on.
To sum it up simply: if a police officer engages you and makes you feel unable to safely walk away from them, you are in police custody.  And this means, if they want to question you, they have to read you the Miranda warnings.  On which note...
Miranda
You know that “right to remain silent” spiel? Those are the Miranda warnings, a verbal acknowledgment of your rights against self-incrimination under police custody as mandated after Miranda v. Arizona. Your Miranda rights are as follows:
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. If you do say anything, it may be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning.
4. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
Police officers are frequently taught not to Mirandize detainees (read the rights out and confirm the detainee’s understanding of them) until they are ready to begin interviewing them. This is done intentionally to leave you ignorant of your rights for as long as possible. If you are not Mirandized, your statements and any other evidence obtained as a result of your questioning by police may not be used against you in court. This does not mean you should chat away—do not do that—but always be aware of whether your rights have been read to you!
Even if you were not Mirandized, evidence obtained as a result of your questioning by police may be used against you if a court rules the discovery of that evidence was “inevitable”, as in, the evidence would have been found even had you not been questioned.  However, there are 4 exceptions that allow police to use information and/or evidence obtained without Mirandizing you.  This site briefly covers a lot of the same ground I’m about to, while a denser, in-depth legalese explanation can be found here.
The big exception is when police can assert they believed questioning you was “necessary for public safety”.  This is meant for situations involving live bombs or active shooters, where it’s critical to acquire information that could be used to save presently-endangered lives, but it could theoretically be stretched to cover scenarios like, say, you’re currently participating in a protest which the police have deemed violent and/or unlawful. Information obtained from questioning you, evidence found in your possession or as a result of questioning you, and witnesses uncovered through questioning you under the public safety exception are all admissible in court.
The next two exceptions are when asking you standard booking questions (including asking for identifying information, which is not legally considered to be incriminating) and when making a routine traffic stop.
Fourth and last, remember that any fellow detainee may be a jailhouse informant, a non-police individual tasked by the police to get information from you.  This is very important because information given to jailhouse informants by non-Mirandized detainees is admissible in court.
Even if the police do not inform you of your Miranda rights, you always have your Miranda rights.  You may and should exercise your right to remain silent and request an attorney.  If police attempt to question you while you are in custody, immediately state that you are exercising your right to remain silent and your right to counsel.  Do it as clearly and, if you are in public, as loudly as you can.  Create witnesses.  There is no formal language you have to follow here; even if you just say “I’m not talking to you, I want my lawyer”, police are legally required to respect that you are invoking your rights against self-incrimination. Edit 7/8/22 since this is making the rounds again, apparently since I last studied this stuff years ago some legal precedent has weaselled its way into existence that allows police to go “oh i didn’t know they were invoking their rights lmao they just Said Words Or Some Shit” unless you explicitly say “I am invoking my right to remain silent, and I am invoking my right to counsel.” So. Memorise that. Get to the point of saying it your goddamn sleep because we all livin’ in the same dystopia now 🇺🇸❤️‍🔥😐
***As of 6/24/2022, police personnel who extract information from non-Mirandized detainees can no longer be sued for violating the detainees’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.  This makes it more important than ever to verbally affirm your own Miranda rights as described above.***
Finally, do your best to document any violation of these rights by police personnel that occur, even if it’s just mentally noting date, time, and place.  This will help your lawyer obtain proof of the violations, which will be valuable to your defense should your case go to court.  And speaking of lawyers:
Legal Representation
If you are being questioned by police, you want a lawyer.  The cops might tell you that you don’t.  They might say something like “hiring a lawyer makes you look guilty” or “why do you need a lawyer if you didn’t do anything wrong?” or maybe even the chummy ol’ “look, we don’t need to get lawyers involved here, we just want to talk”.  This is nonsense and it is a trap.  Neither staying silent nor asking for an attorney can be held against you in court.  It is not a tacit admission of guilt.  It is an extension of your enshrined constitutional right to not incriminate yourself.  You. Want. A. Lawyer.
So, you want a lawyer, but lawyers are expensive.  This is in part because law is hard.  People who agree to practice law on the cheap as public defenders, the attorneys which “will be appointed to you if you so desire” per Miranda, are often dedicated to their work.  However, because lawyers are expensive, public defenders are incredibly overworked and may not be able to give your case the attention it needs.  If there is no alternative, accept a public defender (they may also be referred to as a court-appointed attorney).
But!  Before you do that, especially if you were involved in a protest or other social justice initiative, call the National Lawyers Guild.  Their main phone number is (212) 679-5100, which can be called for information; a list of email addresses and phone extensions can be found here.  This page lists all of their chapters nationwide; find the one nearest you and note down all resources they have available.  Memorize the legal support hotline for the nearest chapter that has one, or write it down somewhere you can’t lose it, like on your arm.  Contact them ahead of time if you think you’re likely to be arrested!  The NLG also has a list of attorneys to which it can refer you here, which can be searched by city, state, and area of specialty.
The American Bar Association has a directory of pro bono organizations here--in other words, a list of attorneys willing to work for free when needed.  Simply search up your state and it’ll throw you a list.  Be prepared with contact information for a qualified organization listed here.  If you believe you may be charged or threatened with criminal charges, make sure you’ve selected an attorney experienced in criminal law.
In case of attending an organized protest, find out if someone set up a legal defense fund in advance.  This can be used to cover your legal fees.  And, again, if there is no alternative, accept a public defender or court-appointed attorney.  An overworked lawyer is better than no lawyer at all.
Finally, even if you are guilty of the crime with which you have been or are expecting to be charged, try to avoid explicitly admitting guilt to your lawyer.  Yes, they will still defend you, no, they won’t tell anyone because attorney/client privilege is in fact real, but lawyers are not supposed to lie to the court.  If you are guilty and your lawyer knows it, they cannot claim you are innocent as part of your defense.  There’s...wiggle room here, as technically your lawyer doesn’t know you’re guilty just because you said you were, and there’s a reason the verdicts are “guilty” and “not guilty” instead of “guilty” and “innocent” and that’s because factual guilt and legal guilt are two different things and any good lawyer is gonna focus on legal guilt anyway, but, man, just don’t do your lawyer like that.  That said, do not lie to your lawyer.
Interrogation
So you’re probably aware that the police are not allowed to physically abuse you during interrogation, or threaten to do so in order to coerce you.  What you might not know is that the police can do almost anything short of that.  Most importantly, the police can straight-up lie to you.  About anything.  They can tell you they have conclusive, hard evidence of your guilt.  They can tell you the friend they arrested alongside you has told them everything and that the only way to keep yourself from going to prison forever is to turn on your friend as well.  It’s called police deception, and it’s legal to use against adults in all 50 states and against juveniles in every state except Illinois, Oregon, and Utah.
Police deception is one of the most dangerous tools available to police as it is not only legal, but unlike any other methods they might employ, your lawyer A) cannot stop the police from lying and B) is also being lied to because they’re right there in the room with you.
Technically, the police cannot psychologically coerce someone in an interrogation, and no, I don’t have any goddamn idea why police deception doesn’t count as psychological coercion because it sure as hell sounds like it, but it doesn’t.
The police can detain you for up to 48 hours without charging you; when that time is up, if no charges have been brought, they must release you.  While I don’t believe it’s specifically codified that the police must provide you with adequate food, water, and sleep; necessary medications; and bathroom access during this time, withholding any of those things is classified as coercion and will render any statements you make while interrogated under that coercion inadmissible in court.
While police cannot force you to incriminate yourself without violating your Fifth Amendment rights, police can collect biological samples like hair, blood, or saliva in many states.  Maryland and California come to mind, but I can’t find a unified list.  In case of a suspected DUI, blood samples are legal in all 50 states through the implied consent laws tied to having a driver’s license.
Police can take your fingerprints as part of the standard booking process.
Plea bargains are tricky things to discuss, and discussion of them is best left to legal professionals, which I am not.  Do not accept any plea bargains without talking it over with your attorney.  Remember also that as public defenders are overworked, they may be more inclined, even just subconsciously, to take a bargain rather than enter what could become a protracted legal proceeding.  The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are settled with plea bargains, including cases ending in wrongful convictions.  Consider any bargain offered to you very carefully with the aid of a qualified legal professional.
Additional Resources
For legal education and questions:
The American Civil Liberties Union has a very well-organized breakdown of your civil rights here
The NLG has a short booklet in several languages called Know Your Rights: A Guide for Protesters which can be downloaded as a PDF or ordered in physical format
The ABA has an online legal clinic that will answer any legal questions you may have free of charge, as well as a list of tools and information organized by state you can use to suss out the answers for yourself
Bail funds:
The National Bail Fund Network’s directory can point you to at least one active bail fund in any state, as well as a couple of national ones
The Bail Project is active in 31 cities nationwide at the time of posting; there’s a map on their homepage that shows you which ones
In case of wrongful conviction:
The Innocence Project needs no introduction
The Innocence Network is a group of organizations dedicated to preventing and overturning wrongful conviction, the full list of which can be found here
If you can and wish to follow up on your detention with a civil suit and your lawyer doesn’t handle such cases (or if you’ve ended up on the receiving end of a suit), the Legal Services Corporation is a federally-funded nonprofit that can point you at a legal aid organization through this search function.
And that’s about all I’ve got for you today.  I’d say “I hope this helps!” but I actually genuinely hope I’m overthinking this whole thing and that most people do know about all the stuff I just talked about and that I look like an absolute idiot for going on about it at such length.  Either way--good day and good luck!
178 notes · View notes
thoughtportal · 1 year
Link
Tumblr media
30 notes · View notes
meandmybigmouth · 1 year
Link
Tumblr media
23 notes · View notes
Text
oooohoooo hooo hoooooo
6 notes · View notes
canadianabroadvery · 1 year
Link
Tumblr media
19 notes · View notes
alwaysbewoke · 1 year
Link
Newly uncovered evidence linked investigation into 1994 New Orleans murder to disgraced officer currently on federal death row
Three Louisiana men incarcerated for over 28 years were found to have been wrongfully convicted of murder on Wednesday, after newly uncovered evidence linked the original police investigation to a notorious officer found guilty of murder conspiracy and endemic corruption in the New Orleans police department.
Bernell Juluke, Kunta Gable and Leroy Nelson were found guilty of the second-degree murder of Rondell Santinac in 1996, with all three men – who were teenagers at the time of the drive-by shooting in the city’s ninth ward – maintaining their innocence since arrest.
At an emotionally charged post-conviction hearing on Wednesday, prosecutors for the Orleans parish district attorney’s civil rights division presented evidence in court that linked the 1994 murder to disgraced former police officers Len Davis and Sammie Williams. Records revealed the pair were the first officers present at the scene of the shooting.
Prosecutors also unveiled additional evidence of innocence, involving the testimony and credibility of the lone eyewitness to the shooting, which had been withheld from the defense at trial.
Davis, who is currently on federal death row after being convicted on multiple civil rights charges, became a key target in an FBI undercover operation in the mid-90s as it emerged the patrolman was a lead enforcer in a protection racket for city drug dealers operated by corrupt police officers. During the investigation, Davis was recorded on a wiretap commissioning a hit on a woman named Kim Groves, who had filed a brutality complaint against his partner Williams. Groves was murdered less than two months after the Santinac killing.
20 notes · View notes
nando161mando · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes
Text
ATLANTANS!!!!
official petition to stop cop city!! 75,000 signatures means an official referendum on the ballot in november which means YOU CAN ACTUALLY DECIDE TO STOP IT FOR REAL
2 notes · View notes
cock-holliday · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
You call the cops when you get locked out of your apartment, they come kill you. You call the cops for an emergency, they come kill you. You call the cops for a mental health crisis, they come kill you. You call the cops to snitch on someone else, they come kill you. You call the cops for an active shooter and they stand around with their dicks in their hands but find their spine to stop parents who try to go save their kids.
Cops are not your friends, they do not help you. They come to escalate, agitate, or stop people from protecting each other.
Abolish the police. Abolish the police. Abolish the police.
67 notes · View notes
fernreads · 1 year
Text
In response to the scandal that engulfed the Houston Police Department's Narcotics Division after a lethal 2019 drug raid based on a falsified search warrant, Harris County prosecutors dropped dozens of pending cases and recommended the reversal of at least five convictions. They said those cases were irredeemably tainted by the involvement of Gerald Goines, the officer who lied to obtain the 2019 warrant that led to the deaths of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, or similarly dishonest colleagues. But that judgment did not necessarily mean that the defendants recovered cash or cars seized by Houston's corrupt cops under the pretext of enforcing drug laws.
Even in cases that hinged on the trustworthiness of demonstrably untrustworthy cops, The Houston Chronicle reports, prosecutors so far have chosen to keep nearly all of the property seized from defendants. That striking contradiction illustrates the lax rules governing civil asset forfeiture, which allows police and prosecutors to pad their budgets by confiscating allegedly crime-tainted property.
The Chronicle identified "three dozen instances in recent years in which an indicted member of the Squad 15 narcotics unit swore to the facts used to justify a search leading to a cash or vehicle confiscation." The loot, collected over a five-year period, included about $75,000 in cash and several cars. "Records show some or all of the money confiscated during the busts was returned in five cases," the Chronicle reports, "typically after defendants hired lawyers to challenge the forfeitures." But the county has kept the rest of the money and the cars, even though prosecutors consider the evidence that led to the seizures unreliable because it was offered by cops with a record of making stuff up.
In 2018, for instance, Goines and his partner, Steven Bryant—both of whom face state and federal charges in connection with the operation that killed Tuttle and Nicholas the following year—participated in the raid of a "suspected drug house." They arrested Andrew Hebert, claiming they had seen him selling drugs outside the house, and seized $11,000 from him.
Prosecutors decided to drop the case against Hebert in light of Goines et al.'s unreliability. "Circumstances in this case impacted the credibility of material witnesses," they told his lawyer. But Hebert did not get his money back.
Also in 2018, Bryant and his colleagues arrested Christopher White and seized $2,465 from his car, claiming they had "observed him make a crack cocaine sale outside a barber shop." Prosecutors ultimately dropped the charges because of Bryant's involvement but again kept the money.
In 2016, Goines and his colleagues searched a house based on a fictional crack purchase. They seized $2,700 from Andre Thomas, who likewise never got it back.
"Prosecutors are currently reviewing several cases related to Squad 15 to determine if they involve assets that should be returned to members of the community," a spokesman for the Harris County District Attorney's Office told the Chronicle. But  they are under no obligation to return anything, because the rules for civil asset forfeitures are much looser than the rules that apply to criminal cases.
To seize property under civil forfeiture laws, police typically need nothing more than probable cause to believe it is somehow connected to criminal activity. The government does not have to charge the owner with a crime, let alone convict him. If the owner does not challenge the forfeiture in court, which frequently costs more than the property is worth, a vague allegation of a criminal nexus is enough to keep the loot.
Prosecutors have voluntarily returned seized property to at least one of Goines' victims. The Chronicle says they "quietly" returned $1,668 to Otis Mallet, whom Goines arrested on crack cocaine charges in 2008. Mallet always maintained that Goines had invented the crack purchase that was the basis for the arrest, which would be consistent with what investigators later discovered about Goines' fabulism. Mallet's conviction was overturned in 2021, after he had served two years of an eight-year sentence.
While keeping Mallet's money would have been plainly unjust, it also would have been perfectly legal. Except in states that require a criminal conviction to complete a forfeiture, the fact that the government does not have enough evidence to prove someone committed a crime is no barrier to confiscating his property.
The Texas Supreme Court underlined that distinction in 2016, when it concluded that the exclusionary rule, which bars the admission of illegally obtained evidence, does not apply to civil actions under Chapter 59, a state law authorizing "forfeiture of contraband." The case involved the seizure of a 2004 Lincoln Navigator from Miguel Herrera, who was arrested after police found drugs in the car. Herrera argued that the search was unconstitutional because the cops did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over and that the drugs they found therefore should not be considered as evidence to support forfeiture of the car.
The trial court and the appeals court agreed. But the Texas Supreme Court did not, saying "an illegal seizure" of evidence does not "require exclusion in a Chapter 59 civil-forfeiture proceeding." That means drugs discovered during an illegal search based on Goines' lies, although not admissible in any resulting criminal case, could still be used to justify the confiscation of cash found during that search, assuming the owner challenged the forfeiture.
The seizures highlighted by the Chronicle represent just a small piece of Harris County's take from this system of legalized larceny. Last year, the Institute for Justice filed a state lawsuit challenging the county's forfeiture practices. The lead defendant is the Harris County District Attorney's Office—the same agency that is trying to assess and ameliorate the damage done by Goines and his cronies.
The lead plaintiffs in the proposed class action are a Mississippi couple, Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis, who were robbed of $42,300 after they were pulled over by sheriff's deputies on Interstate 10 in May 2019. Woods and Davis were on their way to Houston, where Woods planned to spend the money on a tractor and a trailer for his trucking business. The deputies ostensibly stopped them because they were following another vehicle too closely, although Woods, who was driving, was not cited for that alleged offense. Instead, the cops made off with the couple's life savings.
The district attorney's office filed a forfeiture petition the following month. But Woods and Davis were not notified of the pending action until last August, 27 months after the seizure.
According to the Institute for Justice lawsuit, all of the money Woods and Davis were carrying was obtained legally. The largest share, $22,800, came from Woods' savings. He borrowed $6,500 from his wife and $13,000 from his niece, planning to pay them back after his investment in a tractor-trailer allowed him to expand his business.
The forfeiture petition claimed a drug-detecting dog alerted to the money. But no such dog was present during the stop, which means this alleged canine inspection must have occurred after the deputies already had seized the cash, supposedly based on probable cause to believe it was related to illegal activity. Research has found that as much as 90 percent of U.S. currency carries traces of cocaine, which therefore hardly counts as evidence that the current owner is involved in drug dealing.
"What happened to Ameal and Jordan routinely happens to other property owners in Harris County," the lawsuit says. After reviewing 113 civil forfeiture petitions filed by county prosecutors since 2016, the Institute for Justice found that all of them were "based on a form affidavit written by an officer who was not present at the time and place of seizure." Seventy-nine of the affidavits included identical or closely similar language saying "a K-9 Unit gave a positive response for the odor of narcotics" when presented with the property. Eighty affidavits were written by the same officer who supported the petition seeking forfeiture of the money seized from Woods and Davis, and 92 "involved a dog alert that allegedly was obtained after police seized property."
The lawsuit argues that Harris County's racket violates the state constitution in several ways: It involves seizures that are not based on probable cause; it does not give property owners a prompt post-seizure hearing; it relies on "hearsay testimony" and "cut-and-paste allegations"; it gives law enforcement agencies a financial incentive to seize first and ask questions later (if ever); and it requires owners to prove their innocence.
This process is so daunting and burdensome that 60 percent of property owners give up without a fight. That works to the advantage of local law enforcement agencies. From 2018 to 2020, the Institute for Justice notes, "Harris County prosecutors added $7.7 million to their budgets" through civil forfeiture. During the same period, "law enforcement agencies in Harris County added $15.9 million to their budgets," and "more than $7.5 million of that money was used to pay salaries and overtime to police officers—the same officers who make decisions about whether to seize property."
Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg wants credit for investigating the blatantly corrupt behavior of Goines and other Houston narcotics officers. Meanwhile, her office, which is hardly without blame for prosecuting falsely accused defendants, is eagerly engaged in money grabs that victimize innocent people and make a mockery of justice.
11 notes · View notes
corporationsarepeople · 8 months
Text
This is where Trump will be booked.
It’s also known as “Rice Street” among the hip hop community (it’s located a few miles from downtown & the courthouse and not much else is around it on Rice St).
FIFTEEN people died here from neglect in 2022 alone.
If anything positive comes from this trial (I mean in addition to Trump & his cronies getting a 5-year minimum sentence), I hope that it can shed a light on the deliberately inhumane conditions in this shithole.
54 notes · View notes
partisan-by-default · 2 years
Link
In many cases, the encounters started as traffic stops, or there were no allegations of violence or serious crimes prompting police contact. Some people were shot in the back while running and others were passengers in fleeing cars.
Two recent cases have sparked national outrage and protests. In Akron, Ohio, on 27 June, officers fired dozens of rounds at Jayland Walker, who was unarmed and running when he was killed. And last week, an officer in San Bernardino, California, exited an unmarked car and immediately fired at Robert Adams as he ran in the opposite direction.
Despite a decades-long push to hold officers accountable for killing civilians, prosecution remains exceedingly rare, the data shows. Of the 2,500 people killed while fleeing since 2015, only 50 or 2% have resulted in criminal charges. The majority of those charges were either dismissed or resulted in acquittals. Only nine officers were convicted, representing 0.35% of cases.
The data, advocates and experts say, highlights how the US legal system allows officers to kill with impunity and how reform efforts have not addressed fundamental flaws in police departments.
“In 2014 and 2015, at the beginning of this national conversation about racism in policing, the idea was, ‘There are bad apples in police departments, and if we just charged or fired those particularly bad officers, we could save lives and stop police violence,’” said Samuel Sinyangwe, a data scientist and policy analyst who founded Mapping Police Violence, but “this data shows that this is much bigger than any individual officer.”
11 notes · View notes
thoughtportal · 1 year
Link
over the ensuing decades, judges granted more and more powers to the police to stop and search vehicles. In particular, they were given the authority to do so on the mere pretext of suspecting criminal activity – in what is now known as a pretextual traffic stop. But what constitutes a “reasonable” pretext is still a legal gray area. The fourth amendment is supposed to protect us against searches and seizures that are “unreasonable”. The problem is that when fourth amendment cases are brought against police, courts and juries routinely defer to the officer’s testimony.
This judicial tilt in favor of discretionary authority inevitably led to abridgments of civil liberties, and worse.
4 notes · View notes