8 ms·

Framed For Selling Crack, Surveillance Video Helps Him Sue Police

300 points by jhonovich 13y ago

kevingadd 13y ago
No doubt they will pin all this on the informant despite the fact that the prosecutors are complete scum that thought they could get away with hiding evidence. I'm sure they knew what it showed.
- aquadrop 13y ago
  My thoughts exactly. We don't know if police acted bad or they just did their job, but prosecutor is criminal for sure. He had the tapes, he knew defendant was talking about it, so most probably he saw it and knew what happened. So, either knowingly or by criminal negligence he tried to send in jail innocent person.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  In the UK, a prosecution would fall apart if police officers were cross examined and had to admit that they were hiding evidence. The procedures for handling evidence are very strict, and police are obliged to register everything in a database (I don't know the name of the laws forcing them to do this, but it was explained to me when I was on a jury). You then have both the officers who were on the scene and the master of records, where video evidence is used, testify about the source of the video and any processing it has been through, and so on. These prosecution witnesses are all cross-examined, and if a defense lawyer had the angle that procedure had not been followed properly (i.e. the master of records, and those investigating the case, had ignored or hidden evidence that supported the defense), the officers' testimony would fall apart and they would likely be charged themselves (or at least disciplined internally) on the basis of the evidence they gave in court under oath.
jhonovich 13y ago
I know a lot of people are understandably concerned about surveillance video, but this is a case where if the guy did not have it, he would have been going to jail, probably for a long time.
- makomk 13y ago
  People are understandably concerned about surveillance video because it inherently favours the police. If this was a police officer framing him, chances are the video would have mysteriously been "lost" or "damaged" whilst it was in police custody.
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    That is why you should have a real time or near real time offsite encrypted backup...
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    So back it up in the cloud - confiscating the hardware would mean nothing. Maybe the guy should have paid someone to help him install the system...
- the_ancient 13y ago
  I am concerned about surveillance video not under my direct control, but instead under government control surveillance video of my own property which I have direct access to, can encrypt and protect, is not a problem.
- kaoD 13y ago
  This is private surveillance, which is fine. The problem is not surveillance, but power concentrating in a single entity.
mschuster91 13y ago
Thank God in Germany the prosecution is required to make all evidence available to the defense lawyers, including material which can counter the prosecutor's claims.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  How good is the system at ensuring this happens? I'd be impressed if they manage to stop prosecutors from cheating.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    Pretty good at it, I can't recall any major scandal in the last few years. Suppression of evidence (regardless who the actor is, be it prosecutor or a 3rd party) is punishable by law (http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/274.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/274.html). However I was not able to find the possible sentences (though, I think, it includes jail time).
    - SwellJoe 13y ago
      There's no major scandal because it is expected, it is practiced with regularity, and it is not punished when it happens. Some friends of mine were setup by Austin Police Department undercover officers...the protest they intended to participate in would have led to misdemeanor charges. The undercover officers encouraged use of, and provided, dragon sleeves (a type of lockbox to make it harder to separate protestors who are in a sit-in or lockdown of some sort), which led to felony charges for seven of the protestors. It was entirely a lucky break that one of the undercover officers was outed (a friend of a friend recognized him from school and knew he was a cop), and with that information the lawyer was able to request all the records that showed how things went down. Had that lucky break not happened, those kids would still be in jail today and saddled with felonies. The prosecuting attorney tried to make the case that his Houston officers didn't know about it, and that it wasn't relevant to the case and that evidence shouldn't be brought up. The judge, thankfully, disagreed. In my experience, cops lie, prosecuting attorneys lie, and when they lie they face no consequences. The officers overseeing this case, and the district attorney prosecuting this, should be out of a job or, better, in jail for trying to destroy a man's life. But, to them it's just another day. They got caught this time, but dozens of others weren't lucky enough to have surveillance footage proving their innocence. I don't have a very high opinion of police or the justice system, as you may have guessed by now. But, I think it's important to stop living under the illusion that this is an isolated incident and that "most cops are good people".
mercurial 13y ago
I suppose that there is an incentive for each of the bad actors in this scenario. What do the informant and the prosecutor get out of a successful conviction? Money? Reputation?
- lazyjones 13y ago
  The prosecutor at least gets reputation for convictions. The informant might get some pocket money in the process. Both might get additional "motivation" from corporations running privatized prisons ...
  - smtddr 13y ago
    >>privatized prisons The fact that these even exist is disgusting. What are the board-meetings like in this kind of company? "Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that." I wish someone could "accidentally" leak the discussions that go on with execs in charge of those places.
    - swombat 13y ago
      > "Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that." Sounds about right...
    - rmc 13y ago
      Lest you think that they are the source of the problems, but prison officer unions are also in favour of more crimes & longer sentences for similar selfish reasons.
- maaaats 13y ago
  The informant may be a person with charges, and helping the police with a bigger bust may lessen his punishment.
mortov 13y ago
He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the charge was false. In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself. Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim. The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction. What could possibly go wrong ?
- DanBC 13y ago
  But if they've seized the surveillance tapes that you made can you get those somehow? And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point? It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier. You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    The situation of Scotland removing a requirement that no other legal system has is "scary"? Why?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Removing the need for evidence means more miscarriages of justice. In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
      - phaemon 13y ago
pygy_ 13y ago
In France and Belgium the investigation is done by a neutral judge (known as juge d'instruction). It usually prevents these kinds of misgivings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
- Luc 13y ago
  Not for long though. Due to European law to homogenize the judiciary systems across Europe, investigating judges are on their way out, and we're to go towards a purely oppositional system in the next few years (I don't know the right terms to plug into Google to get a supporting link, sorry). I'm expecting we'll see huge problems during the transitional years.
- dhughes 13y ago
  A judge by definition impartial/neutral, that's the point of a judge. That's frightening that France and Belgium have the need of a special judge called a neutral judge.
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    They're all neutral, indeed. It was a pleonasm. My bad.
  - Kell 13y ago
    It's because in France and Belgium we have a category, called "Magistrat" that contains both the judges (independent, neutral etc.) and the prosecutors (neither independent, nor neutral). So we often discuss it saying that judges are neutral magistrates. Sometimes this is lost in translation :). Edit : And the Juge d'Instruction IS a special judge, because he doesn't judge anything, his job is to head all investigations in serious and complicated cases. Normally that would be the prosecutors job... so it's an independent and trully neutral man (a judge) doing a prosecutor job, in the interest of the accusation and the defense, at the same time. That's quite special.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
It would be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. Obviously the use of compensated informants would be prohibited as well.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
aric 13y ago
This is frighteningly normal. $500,000 won't make prosecutors suddenly interested in veering away from extinguishing people to win. I doubt $500 billion-with-a-B would scratch beyond the surface of flawed architecture. The United States' criminal justice system, as a particular hodgepodge of incentives, disincentives, esoteric proceedings, privileged access, violent sentencing, plea pressure, and power-tripping careerism -- irrespective of cruel laws -- is a deeply failed model in the context of ethics. It's a very 'successful' model in other contexts. Before anyone replies with comparative excuses or appeals to historical precedence, see this. I, too, agree that US "justice" is far more ethical than the "justice" of North Korea and several other fundamentalist countries. Great. I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive. Rejoice for a second in shared misery.
- aragot 13y ago
  > billion-with-a-big-B +1 > I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically primitive. I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental differences between France and Commonwealth law structures: - Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course, like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's so much more aligned with human's behavior. - In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover a mistake. - In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven, which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't commit. - In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial. There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too. [1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.
baldajan 13y ago
I read stories like this, and I believe the line between China and the US blurs more and more. This is truly a crazy system.
- brodo 13y ago
  The Chinese legal system is completely different form western systems. Here's a "This american life" episode which gives you a nice overview: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/adventure?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/a... Also this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs
  - baldajan 13y ago
    It's more the idea that prosecutors are using their power to hold evidence and resources against innocent defendants (you're innocent until proven guilty). Worse, they're planting "evidence" to get their way - this isn't a land of the free. Even though I agree that China and the US are still different in their justice systems, I believe the lines between them are blurring, and eventually we will find it hard to distinguish the difference. Or maybe, the US has always been like that (unjust), but just really good at marketing (via Hollywood)
Aoyagi 13y ago
What is so interesting about this? It's not like the NSA helped to man to clean his name. The cameras were his private surveillance of his private property, I understand. That's what the surveillance is for, to provide proofs.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
>> his lawyer will file a wrongful arrest suit against the city, seeking $500,000 from the police department, county and the village. And how much of the $500k will be actually be paid by the guilty parties, and how much will be paid for by innocent citizenry?
- protomyth 13y ago
  All of it will be paid by taxpayers. The sad thing is the veil is far too hard to pierce for personal responsibility to be a factor in the day to day lives of public servants.
  - imroot 13y ago
    Actually, most if not all of it will be paid by the city's insurance company -- but the city will have to pay increased premiums (or find a new insurance provider) after it's done.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Check the self insurance part of what the city has purchased. Most cities have a very large self insurance payout to keep the rates low.
- stretchwithme 13y ago
  Perhaps those to blame should each be made to pay 1% of any award. Hardly a devastating amount but enough to feel something for all the pain they cause.
hawkharris 13y ago
Before recording a police officer, make sure you don't live in a "two - party consent" state, in which recording someone without his or her knowledge can be a crime. One of my good friends, who is a civil rights attorney in Boston, represented a client who secretly used his phone to record himself getting pulled over for a speeding ticket. He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.
- CapitalistCartr 13y ago
  Don't do it secretly. The Website Pinac.com documents a great deal of this. It tends to infuriate the cop, but is legal.
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    For best results, you record twice: once overtly, as you say, and another in secret, ideally in a place that can also observer the first camera/tape to document the potential destruction of evidence.
- coldcode 13y ago
  Not an issue with a store owner, there is no need for consent as it is a public location and where recording is expected.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Yeah otherwise all CCTV cameras in shops/banks/etc would be illegal.
- Moral_ 13y ago
  Wasnt there a Supreme court ruling that said it was legal to video tape public officials on public property?
  - marme 13y ago
    it is legal to record them if it is clear you are recording them i.e. holding up a camera or phone that any reasonable person who deduce that they were being recorded. Recording someone with a hidden camera can fall under wiretapping laws if it is a two party state. The laws usually require both people to be aware they are being recorded and the fact that your camera is hidden means the second party i.e. the cop, does not know he is being recorded
pasbesoin 13y ago
The careers of the police and prosecutor involved should be ended, for a start. They should also be criminally prosecuted, themselves. If we can't place reasonable trust in law enforcement... well, then, we are no longer a nation of law (imperfect as that is). The compensation should also be at least an order of magnitude larger, as only painful (both in publicity and in resulting operating constraints) amounts of money seem to have any real effect on the larger system.
noonespecial 13y ago
"The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice."(1) Fortunately (heh), we've carefully defined obstruction of justice in the USA so that it doesn't seem to apply to prosecutors who stare right at exculpatory evidence and then try to hide it to pervert justice anyway. I'm inclined to stop calling them "prosecutors" and take the advice of my spellcheck when I mistyped it and call them "persecutors". (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
robbiemitchell 13y ago
> "The cops said there was no need for that -- that they had me on video, and they had audio. ..." So the cops were flat-out lying?
lando2319 13y ago
I've heard stories of Detectives ignoring someone's pleas to check some evidence that would prove their innocence. What incentive would a detective have in NOT checking out the person's claim? Do they just assume the person is lying and that their intel on this person is solid? In a case like this, it seem plausible from the beginning that the CI could be lying, (at least as the story is told) perhaps there are just no consequences for these detectives when getting it wrong. It just seems like it's worth checking this guy's Surveillance Camera Footage sooner rather than later.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  A conviction is always better than the alternative. The job of detectives and prosecutors is, essentially, to find guilty people and convict them of committing crimes. It's pretty easy for the 'guilty' part of this job to get erased because none of the incentives really discourage the arrest or conviction of innocent people.
memracom 13y ago
And to think that Americans make such a big fuss about corruption in Ukraine, Russia, China, etc. They should shut up and pay attention to the extensive and systemic corruption in the USA. At least countries like Russia and China are making attempts to clean up their local corruption problems. But what is America doing to clean up its own house? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
- gamed 13y ago
  This is a good example of the Tu quoque[1] logical fallacy. Just because America may have its own problems, or be hypocritical in some sense, does not mean that they should not criticise the international community. Hypocrisy does not invalidate the argument. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
joesmo 13y ago
The biggest problem (and there are many) is the use of informants and arrest based on information they provide. Anyone can make up a story or evidence this way. There is absolutely no way that crack could be identified in a photo. This is, of course, how the "justice" system works in the US.
- unreal37 13y ago
  The worst problem with using informants in my eyes is that the informant only has incentives to get an arrest. Could the informant leave the store and say "the guy said he didn't have any drugs"? Police officers, at least, can be fired for being caught lying and have an incentive for peace and order in the public.
busterarm 13y ago
This is why every video surveillance system needs a secure internet connection and automatic upload offsite. It's all about chain of custody. You don't want to be begging for access to evidence that you know exists, you want to have it, introduce it yourself and make prosecutors look stupid. And if your connection is physically cut, then you can introduce an element of doubt.
puppetmaster3 13y ago
Based on the story, this did not happen in Scotland.
midas007 13y ago
Another reason to have video+audio inside and out of a brick & mortar. The other thing is to live stream a backup to somewhere out-of-reach of local & country jurisdictions. Because if you don't provide your own reliable evidence, you're going to get fucked.
warfangle 13y ago
>My lawyer had to beg for those tapes. Why didn't his lawyer bring up the Brady rule?
abhi3188 13y ago
Im surprised hes suing them only for 500k..arent there any other criminal charges that he should file for this?

300 points by jhonovich 13y ago

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

aquadrop 13y ago
My thoughts exactly. We don't know if police acted bad or they just did their job, but prosecutor is criminal for sure. He had the tapes, he knew defendant was talking about it, so most probably he saw it and knew what happened. So, either knowingly or by criminal negligence he tried to send in jail innocent person.
tehwalrus 13y ago
In the UK, a prosecution would fall apart if police officers were cross examined and had to admit that they were hiding evidence. The procedures for handling evidence are very strict, and police are obliged to register everything in a database (I don't know the name of the laws forcing them to do this, but it was explained to me when I was on a jury). You then have both the officers who were on the scene and the master of records, where video evidence is used, testify about the source of the video and any processing it has been through, and so on. These prosecution witnesses are all cross-examined, and if a defense lawyer had the angle that procedure had not been followed properly (i.e. the master of records, and those investigating the case, had ignored or hidden evidence that supported the defense), the officers' testimony would fall apart and they would likely be charged themselves (or at least disciplined internally) on the basis of the evidence they gave in court under oath.

jhonovich 13y ago

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

makomk 13y ago
People are understandably concerned about surveillance video because it inherently favours the police. If this was a police officer framing him, chances are the video would have mysteriously been "lost" or "damaged" whilst it was in police custody.
- the_ancient 13y ago
  That is why you should have a real time or near real time offsite encrypted backup...
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  So back it up in the cloud - confiscating the hardware would mean nothing. Maybe the guy should have paid someone to help him install the system...
the_ancient 13y ago
I am concerned about surveillance video not under my direct control, but instead under government control surveillance video of my own property which I have direct access to, can encrypt and protect, is not a problem.
kaoD 13y ago
This is private surveillance, which is fine. The problem is not surveillance, but power concentrating in a single entity.

mschuster91 13y ago

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

kevingadd 13y ago
How good is the system at ensuring this happens? I'd be impressed if they manage to stop prosecutors from cheating.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  Pretty good at it, I can't recall any major scandal in the last few years. Suppression of evidence (regardless who the actor is, be it prosecutor or a 3rd party) is punishable by law (http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/274.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/274.html). However I was not able to find the possible sentences (though, I think, it includes jail time).
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    There's no major scandal because it is expected, it is practiced with regularity, and it is not punished when it happens. Some friends of mine were setup by Austin Police Department undercover officers...the protest they intended to participate in would have led to misdemeanor charges. The undercover officers encouraged use of, and provided, dragon sleeves (a type of lockbox to make it harder to separate protestors who are in a sit-in or lockdown of some sort), which led to felony charges for seven of the protestors. It was entirely a lucky break that one of the undercover officers was outed (a friend of a friend recognized him from school and knew he was a cop), and with that information the lawyer was able to request all the records that showed how things went down. Had that lucky break not happened, those kids would still be in jail today and saddled with felonies. The prosecuting attorney tried to make the case that his Houston officers didn't know about it, and that it wasn't relevant to the case and that evidence shouldn't be brought up. The judge, thankfully, disagreed. In my experience, cops lie, prosecuting attorneys lie, and when they lie they face no consequences. The officers overseeing this case, and the district attorney prosecuting this, should be out of a job or, better, in jail for trying to destroy a man's life. But, to them it's just another day. They got caught this time, but dozens of others weren't lucky enough to have surveillance footage proving their innocence. I don't have a very high opinion of police or the justice system, as you may have guessed by now. But, I think it's important to stop living under the illusion that this is an isolated incident and that "most cops are good people".

mercurial 13y ago

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

lazyjones 13y ago
The prosecutor at least gets reputation for convictions. The informant might get some pocket money in the process. Both might get additional "motivation" from corporations running privatized prisons ...
- smtddr 13y ago
  >>privatized prisons The fact that these even exist is disgusting. What are the board-meetings like in this kind of company? "Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that." I wish someone could "accidentally" leak the discussions that go on with execs in charge of those places.
  - swombat 13y ago
    > "Okay guys, last quarter had a decrease in people put in jail. We need to increase our profits this coming quarter so what can we do to put more people in jail? Also, there's talk about losing our cash-cow. Weed might be legalized. We can't have that." Sounds about right...
  - rmc 13y ago
    Lest you think that they are the source of the problems, but prison officer unions are also in favour of more crimes & longer sentences for similar selfish reasons.
maaaats 13y ago
The informant may be a person with charges, and helping the police with a bigger bust may lessen his punishment.

mortov 13y ago

He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the charge was false. In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself. Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim. The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction. What could possibly go wrong ?

DanBC 13y ago
But if they've seized the surveillance tapes that you made can you get those somehow? And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point? It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier. You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.
- phaemon 13y ago
  The situation of Scotland removing a requirement that no other legal system has is "scary"? Why?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Removing the need for evidence means more miscarriages of justice. In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
    - phaemon 13y ago

pygy_ 13y ago

In France and Belgium the investigation is done by a neutral judge (known as juge d'instruction). It usually prevents these kinds of misgivings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

Luc 13y ago
Not for long though. Due to European law to homogenize the judiciary systems across Europe, investigating judges are on their way out, and we're to go towards a purely oppositional system in the next few years (I don't know the right terms to plug into Google to get a supporting link, sorry). I'm expecting we'll see huge problems during the transitional years.
dhughes 13y ago
A judge by definition impartial/neutral, that's the point of a judge. That's frightening that France and Belgium have the need of a special judge called a neutral judge.
- pygy_ 13y ago
  They're all neutral, indeed. It was a pleonasm. My bad.
- Kell 13y ago
  It's because in France and Belgium we have a category, called "Magistrat" that contains both the judges (independent, neutral etc.) and the prosecutors (neither independent, nor neutral). So we often discuss it saying that judges are neutral magistrates. Sometimes this is lost in translation :). Edit : And the Juge d'Instruction IS a special judge, because he doesn't judge anything, his job is to head all investigations in serious and complicated cases. Normally that would be the prosecutors job... so it's an independent and trully neutral man (a judge) doing a prosecutor job, in the interest of the accusation and the defense, at the same time. That's quite special.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

It would be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. Obviously the use of compensated informants would be prohibited as well.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

aric 13y ago

This is frighteningly normal. $500,000 won't make prosecutors suddenly interested in veering away from extinguishing people to win. I doubt $500 billion-with-a-B would scratch beyond the surface of flawed architecture. The United States' criminal justice system, as a particular hodgepodge of incentives, disincentives, esoteric proceedings, privileged access, violent sentencing, plea pressure, and power-tripping careerism -- irrespective of cruel laws -- is a deeply failed model in the context of ethics. It's a very 'successful' model in other contexts. Before anyone replies with comparative excuses or appeals to historical precedence, see this. I, too, agree that US "justice" is far more ethical than the "justice" of North Korea and several other fundamentalist countries. Great. I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is similarly ethically primitive. Rejoice for a second in shared misery.

aragot 13y ago
> billion-with-a-big-B +1 > I, too, agree that nearly every other nation's justice system is ethically primitive. I don't have data about my own country, but I can tell you about fundamental differences between France and Commonwealth law structures: - Lying is only a fault in Commonwealth countries. In France, people are allowed to lie for their own defense and the girlfriend/wife too. It changes heaps. The policeman has to prove the crime, because proving that the person has been inconsistent is such and such answers won't lead anywhere. Of course, like in US, helping the police is a positive point at the trial. The "allowed to lie for your own defense" rule seems heaps more ethical to me, because it's so much more aligned with human's behavior. - In France, you only get convicted for the highest crime and charges don't add up. If you rob a bank, use a gun without license and kill the security guard, you will get convicted for only the worst of those crimes. That also changes everything: Of course in US you use the "sum" system to frame gangsters whose business you didn't succeed to unveil, but it also means that an almost-non-criminal can be thrown for life on a few actions he did to cover a mistake. - In France, you can plead guilty, but the crime still has to be proven, which is different from the Us[1]. I think pleading guilty is a fundamental flaw: Under the excuse of saving public money, the poorest citizen who can't afford the defense to prove their case would bargain for a crime they didn't commit. - In France it's illegal to imply someone is guilty until they were proven guilty. That's what hurt so much the ethics of French people when pictures of DSK in handcuffs were shown before the trial. There are different systems and, as opposed to you, I think there are more ethical rules to be found in each of them. And, yes, flaws too. [1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaidoyer_de_marchandage Sorry for the French, but the English page of wikipedia doesn't say enough.

baldajan 13y ago

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

brodo 13y ago
The Chinese legal system is completely different form western systems. Here's a "This american life" episode which gives you a nice overview: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/adventure?act=1 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/448/a... Also this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wvSSRWjjUs
- baldajan 13y ago
  It's more the idea that prosecutors are using their power to hold evidence and resources against innocent defendants (you're innocent until proven guilty). Worse, they're planting "evidence" to get their way - this isn't a land of the free. Even though I agree that China and the US are still different in their justice systems, I believe the lines between them are blurring, and eventually we will find it hard to distinguish the difference. Or maybe, the US has always been like that (unjust), but just really good at marketing (via Hollywood)

Aoyagi 13y ago

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

TallGuyShort 13y ago

>> his lawyer will file a wrongful arrest suit against the city, seeking $500,000 from the police department, county and the village. And how much of the $500k will be actually be paid by the guilty parties, and how much will be paid for by innocent citizenry?

protomyth 13y ago
All of it will be paid by taxpayers. The sad thing is the veil is far too hard to pierce for personal responsibility to be a factor in the day to day lives of public servants.
- imroot 13y ago
  Actually, most if not all of it will be paid by the city's insurance company -- but the city will have to pay increased premiums (or find a new insurance provider) after it's done.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Check the self insurance part of what the city has purchased. Most cities have a very large self insurance payout to keep the rates low.
stretchwithme 13y ago
Perhaps those to blame should each be made to pay 1% of any award. Hardly a devastating amount but enough to feel something for all the pain they cause.

hawkharris 13y ago

Before recording a police officer, make sure you don't live in a "two - party consent" state, in which recording someone without his or her knowledge can be a crime. One of my good friends, who is a civil rights attorney in Boston, represented a client who secretly used his phone to record himself getting pulled over for a speeding ticket. He was subsequently charged with a felony for the recording.

CapitalistCartr 13y ago
Don't do it secretly. The Website Pinac.com documents a great deal of this. It tends to infuriate the cop, but is legal.
- pdkl95 13y ago
  For best results, you record twice: once overtly, as you say, and another in secret, ideally in a place that can also observer the first camera/tape to document the potential destruction of evidence.
coldcode 13y ago
Not an issue with a store owner, there is no need for consent as it is a public location and where recording is expected.
- rmc 13y ago
  Yeah otherwise all CCTV cameras in shops/banks/etc would be illegal.
Moral_ 13y ago
Wasnt there a Supreme court ruling that said it was legal to video tape public officials on public property?
- marme 13y ago
  it is legal to record them if it is clear you are recording them i.e. holding up a camera or phone that any reasonable person who deduce that they were being recorded. Recording someone with a hidden camera can fall under wiretapping laws if it is a two party state. The laws usually require both people to be aware they are being recorded and the fact that your camera is hidden means the second party i.e. the cop, does not know he is being recorded

pasbesoin 13y ago

The careers of the police and prosecutor involved should be ended, for a start. They should also be criminally prosecuted, themselves. If we can't place reasonable trust in law enforcement... well, then, we are no longer a nation of law (imperfect as that is). The compensation should also be at least an order of magnitude larger, as only painful (both in publicity and in resulting operating constraints) amounts of money seem to have any real effect on the larger system.

noonespecial 13y ago

"The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice."(1) Fortunately (heh), we've carefully defined obstruction of justice in the USA so that it doesn't seem to apply to prosecutors who stare right at exculpatory evidence and then try to hide it to pervert justice anyway. I'm inclined to stop calling them "prosecutors" and take the advice of my spellcheck when I mistyped it and call them "persecutors". (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

robbiemitchell 13y ago

> "The cops said there was no need for that -- that they had me on video, and they had audio. ..." So the cops were flat-out lying?

lando2319 13y ago

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

kevingadd 13y ago
A conviction is always better than the alternative. The job of detectives and prosecutors is, essentially, to find guilty people and convict them of committing crimes. It's pretty easy for the 'guilty' part of this job to get erased because none of the incentives really discourage the arrest or conviction of innocent people.

memracom 13y ago

And to think that Americans make such a big fuss about corruption in Ukraine, Russia, China, etc. They should shut up and pay attention to the extensive and systemic corruption in the USA. At least countries like Russia and China are making attempts to clean up their local corruption problems. But what is America doing to clean up its own house? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

gamed 13y ago
This is a good example of the Tu quoque[1] logical fallacy. Just because America may have its own problems, or be hypocritical in some sense, does not mean that they should not criticise the international community. Hypocrisy does not invalidate the argument. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

joesmo 13y ago

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

unreal37 13y ago
The worst problem with using informants in my eyes is that the informant only has incentives to get an arrest. Could the informant leave the store and say "the guy said he didn't have any drugs"? Police officers, at least, can be fired for being caught lying and have an incentive for peace and order in the public.

busterarm 13y ago

This is why every video surveillance system needs a secure internet connection and automatic upload offsite. It's all about chain of custody. You don't want to be begging for access to evidence that you know exists, you want to have it, introduce it yourself and make prosecutors look stupid. And if your connection is physically cut, then you can introduce an element of doubt.

puppetmaster3 13y ago

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

midas007 13y ago

Another reason to have video+audio inside and out of a brick & mortar. The other thing is to live stream a backup to somewhere out-of-reach of local & country jurisdictions. Because if you don't provide your own reliable evidence, you're going to get fucked.

warfangle 13y ago

>My lawyer had to beg for those tapes. Why didn't his lawyer bring up the Brady rule?

abhi3188 13y ago

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