Salem Police harassment?

I'm a Salem resident, and I'm interested in following up on this. Could you provide the date of arrest, and an approximate location? I want to have enough facts to ask intelligent questions of the police.

I read ORS 165.543 and 165.540. ( http://www.oregonlawyer.com/ors/Statute_Details.cfm?Statute=165.543) Wow. Looks like there's no exception even for the press. That's a bad law.

are just like the PoPigs...sorry about that dear Salemites!

Sue the city civilly & win. Unfortunately that means you and
I pay the bill if you win. The city just writes a check.
The cop(s) go on with their careers.

The cops have little incentive to follow the rules
to a tee until each and every one is PERSONALLY civilly
liable for their actions.

That could mean an individual officer could:
Lose his home.
Lose his job.
Have his bank account(s) drained.
Have his credit record destroyed.
Have future wages garnished.
Be ineligible for future civil service positions.

'Ya know, more or less what happens to you and I if we
lose a big case and are ordered to pay a Million+ dollar judgement.

Oh, if it were only so for them.

It'd be a different world, and a 15-year old boy in Springfield
might have made it to a grand old age.

thats some bull-fuckn shiot!

I got threatened with arrest for asking an undercover cop if he was a cop and if he was, why he was taking pictures at a peace rally! Course they never followed through.

I finally got the police reports. They are fabricated. They indicate that I was "loud, obnoxious, and uncooperative."

are just like the PoPigs...sorry about that dear Salemites!
What are WE THE PEOPLE to do with these citizen killing oinkers?

Was this broad daylight? I am sure your neighbors could see everything. You should talk to your attorney about researching what they saw. If you are a good neighbor, most people should speak freely. Good Luck!

Photographer should be able to beat the Interfering charges. It is not illegal to photograph or watch police officer. COPS SHOULD NOT ARREST PEOPLE FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH. Please fight these charges and then sue them for violating your rights. It's the only way to stop this outrageous attack on 1st Amendment rights.

Cases re: interfering with a peace officer to give to your lawyer.

Houston v. Hill 482 US 451 (1987) US supreme Court says questioning police actions is constitutionally protected

Oregon v. Lam - 176 Or App 149, 29 P3d 1206 (2001) - Relates to section (a) of Oregon interfering law (interfering with the lawful duties of an officer with regard to another person). States that the section applies ONLY to physical interference with a police officer. Speech is not enough (this would include taking pictures and peaceful assembly some distance away from officers). So if you didn't physically attack an officer you did not violate the interfering statute and will be acquitted. After that file a civil rights lawsuit the next day. You will win.

State v. Illig-Renn - 196 Or App 765, 103 P3d 1178 (2004); 199 Or App __, __ P3d__ (2005).Relates to section (b) of the Oregon interfering law (refusing to obey a lawfult order). The court determined that section (b) is UNCONSTITITONAL. If you are charged with this section have your lawyer file a demurrer to demand that the charges be dropped immediately and file a civil rights lawsuit the next day. You will win.

State v. Ausmus - 336 Or 493, 85 P3d 864 (2004) - Relates to section (e)of the disorderly conduct statute (refusing to disperse when ordered to by an officer). The court determined that this section of the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If you are charged with this section have your lawyer file a demurrer to demand that the charges be dropped immediately and file a civil rights lawsuit the next day. You will win.

Police officers in Oregon don't understand the constitution or just ignore it. They must stop arresting people for no reason and in the alternative pay for their ignorance and/or contempt for the constitution.

Best of luck. Keep us updated.

If you need more help please post here again.

Arrested in your pajamas? Did they think you had a weapon down your pants?! :)

Contact the ACLU.

I will e-mail privately with Washington DC law firm.

Hang in there.


**************************************************************************
"Interfering with an Officer" Ruled Unconstitutional

 http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR33/legalbriefs33.html

Judge Litzenberger, in a lengthy and thorough opinion, ruled that the
ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad since it covers conduct that
the Oregon and federal constitutions protect, the right to assemble
peacefully. "The ordinance makes no exceptions for peaceful
associations or for conduct that merely causes others to step around a
person who happens to be standing on any part of a sidewalk in a manner
that is not causing any harmful effect." She also ruled that the
ordinance is overly vague, which violates the federal constitutional
requirement that criminal statutes be sufficiently definite so that an
ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited and to
prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law.

In a separate case, a "stringer" camera operater charged with
"Interfering with a Police Officer" (ORS 162. 247) was acquitted when
Judge Litzenberger declared that law unconstitutionally broad. The July
15 Portland Mercury reports that Eric Nordquist attempted to capture
video of a fire when Officer Terry Colbert (#28896) ordered him to go
around the block. He refused, and was cited with interfering. The judge
in the case declared the law gave an officer too much power to cite
citizens who may merely be exercising their rights.


**********************************************************************************************

 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=A109093&invol=1

In light of the unequivocal and uncontroverted statement of intent by
the drafter of ORS 162.247, we conclude that the statute was not
intended to reach speech alone.

Prozanski then returned to offer clarification of his testimony: "I
want to make clear that the intent, my intent, is not to limit speech.
It's to deal with the physical contact, or I should say, conduct of an
individual,

Interception of communications - 165.543 applies only when there is an expectation of privacy that the communication won't be intercepted. There is no expectation of privacy when an officer or anyone else is on the street. This law applies mainly to electric and to wire communications.

Look at definitions of oral communication 133.721(7)(a) and (b)

This charge is bullshit. The officer knew this law didn't apply to taking a photograph. Go after him and the city. You have a great civil rights claim here.

The city and officers are complete idiots to charge you with obstructing governmental administration. First of all the law requires you to use intimidation , force or physical interference or obstacle none of which were present from your facts.

And most important...
ORS 162.235(2) states quite plainly...This section SHALL NOT APPLY TO the obstruction of unlawful governmental or judicial arrest OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE MAKING OF AN ARREST.

The statute itself states that what you did (even if it was interfernce - which it wasn't) wasn't a crime. Your attorney should file a demurrer to dismiss this charge. You should then file a civil rights law suit.

Since I did not even videotape them, which I told them, and they verified prior to arresting me, the DA is not pursuing this charge. They added the "interference charge" at my arraignment.

Thanks for all the great feedback. I am impressed with you folks.

By the way, is that photo one of a police chief somewhere?!

I looked into this matter and learned from neighbors that the police (7-9) detained the youth at gunpoint! They had done nothing wrong, and were just hanging out in a garage at a house where they had a right to be!

I think that is why they were so upset when they saw you taking pictures.

73rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2005 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1760
Senate Bill 513; Sponsored by Senator METSGER, Representative OLSON

SUMMARY - Modifies crime of interfering with peace officer.

This is promoting the removal of the language "- Refuses to obey a lawful order by the peace
officer -" and the law requires intentional impediment.

Taking photos does not fall into this category.



**************************************************************************
"Interfering with an Officer" Ruled Unconstitutional

 http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR33/legalbriefs33.html

Judge Litzenberger, in a lengthy and thorough opinion, ruled that the
ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad since it covers conduct that
the Oregon and federal constitutions protect, the right to assemble
peacefully. "The ordinance makes no exceptions for peaceful
associations or for conduct that merely causes others to step around a
person who happens to be standing on any part of a sidewalk in a manner
that is not causing any harmful effect." She also ruled that the
ordinance is overly vague, which violates the federal constitutional
requirement that criminal statutes be sufficiently definite so that an
ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited and to
prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law.

In a separate case, a "stringer" camera operater charged with
"Interfering with a Police Officer" (ORS 162. 247) was acquitted when
Judge Litzenberger declared that law unconstitutionally broad. The July
15 Portland Mercury reports that Eric Nordquist attempted to capture
video of a fire when Officer Terry Colbert (#28896) ordered him to go
around the block. He refused, and was cited with interfering. The judge
in the case declared the law gave an officer too much power to cite
citizens who may merely be exercising their rights.


**********************************************************************************************

 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=A109093&invol=1

In light of the unequivocal and uncontroverted statement of intent by
the drafter of ORS 162.247, we conclude that the statute was not
intended to reach speech alone.

Prozanski then returned to offer clarification of his testimony: "I
want to make clear that the intent, my intent, is not to limit speech.
It's to deal with the physical contact, or I should say, conduct of an
individual,

ORS 162.247 was enacted in 1997 as Senate Bill 423 (SB 423). Representative Prozanski drafted the bill based on a similar municipal ordinance in Eugene. Prozanski testified before the Senate Committee on Crime and Corrections about the problem to which the bill was directed:

"It's another tool, a mechanism to deal with the situation where you have an officer who is involved in something less than performing [an] arrest, but [the officer is] forced to divert [his or her] attention from what could be a very serious threat [to] that officer or anyone else to deal with somebody that is really out of line * * *." Tape recording, Senate Committee on Crime and Corrections, SB 423, Feb. 19, 1997, Tape 13, Side A (testimony of Representative Floyd Prozanski).

THE only way this shit will ever change is to fight back. fear is only going no were , only down a one way street . People say that there are to many of them , and armed , There is to many of us , We are the people , they are the cop's the only thing that cop's seem to care about is to kill and hurt us , it must stop . It is only going to get worse and it has goten worse . We the people can't just stand by or use the court's the "law" is not for but ony the rich and soon not even they will be safe . It has happen already I have seen what will happen if we the people just do nothing . Just say I will not be a target .

Art people Art .



The writing is on the wall ?.

Any comment about violence is out of line. That is bull!

This is for you, Bison Boy...

All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is that Good Men do nothing...

Stay proactive and fight for your rights.


If not YOU, then Who?

If not NOW, then When?


Have a good INDPENDENCE DAY tomorrow. And, don't ever let them take your freedom from you. Many people died to give that RIGHT to you!


This is not meant to be simple rhetoric, but heartfelt sentiment.

Who said that person is a boy ?

No Violence is not the way.

I do understand what that pereson is trying to say - bold.

NEWS STORY: OFFICERS, NOT GENTLEMEN --- Four Portland cops who worry us.

BY NICK BUDNICK; nbudnick at wweek.com

The latest research from Portland's citizen cop watchdog echoes the "few bad apples" adage, saying a few officers generate a large share of misconduct complaints against police.

Last week's Independent Police Review report doesn't name names, and because internal-affairs complaints aren't public, we don't know who these few cops are. But based on interviews with more than two dozen officers, citizens and defense lawyers, as well as a foot-high stack of legal and criminal investigative documents, what follows are four cops we'd be concerned about if we were Chief Derrick Foxworth.

The never-before-public details of the probes and allegations against these officers illustrate another point the city report makes: It's hard to prove police misconduct-which could explain why these cops are still on the force of nearly 1,000 officers.

Jason Lobaugh: In September 2000, Lobaugh, then a nine-year officer, was taken to the emergency room for what he told an orderly was an overdose of GHB, an illegal narcotic banned by Congress seven months before. Nurses suspected the body-builder was on steroids, and Lobaugh's wife and her mother told police Lobaugh was taking GHB to combat post-workout insomnia. Lobaugh had been showing anger fits-and learning that his wife had spoken with investigators did not help his mood. Reports show she later told police, "Jason held her against the bathroom door, and repeatedly punched holes in the bathroom door next to her head."

Investigators tried to bust Lobaugh's suspected supplier by sending undercover officer Daryl Turner to the Max Muscle store in Beaverton. As Turner was poised to buy some suspected GHB, Lobaugh entered and realized what was going on. He exited and immediately used his cell phone to call the man working the counter, putting a halt to the buy. The man told police that Lobaugh warned him Turner was an undercover cop.

Hindering prosecution and interfering with police are both against the law, but prosecutors found insufficient evidence to charge Lobaugh.

A WW records request in November found that in the past decade Lobaugh racked up 14 notices threatening lawsuits for alleged misbehavior, the third-most of any Portland cop. Lobaugh did not return WW' s calls.

Christopher LaFrenz: One month after two Portland cops were charged in May 2002 with felony assault for a vicious off-duty beating of a guy they'd been bullying in a downtown nightspot, a similar off-duty episode involving another officer was narrowly averted in a Hillsboro pizzeria and bar. Bargoers said LaFrenz, then a four-year cop, called a man playing pool "pussy" and "vagina boy," challenging him to fight for no apparent reason. Ordered to leave, LaFrenz's group confronted the pool player outside at closing time. One of the group-possibly LaFrenz-head-butted the man, causing a golf-ball-sized swelling next to his eye. Bystanders broke it up, but when Hillsboro police investigated, LaFrenz hired a lawyer and refused to cooperate. Due to differing witness accounts, nobody was charged.

One year later, working downtown, LaFrenz was approached by an intoxicated man whom the cop dropped with one punch. The man hit the ground, cracked his skull and almost died, spending several days on a ventilator in intensive care.

LaFrenz and a fellow cop claimed the drunk guy was menacing, having flexed his body in a "bodybuilder's pose." But investigators noted inconsistencies in their accounts. And the only non-Portland cop witness-a recent police-academy graduate named Lee Gilbert, who'd watched intently from a block away in his car's rearview mirror-told police the drunk guy was talking calmly to LaFrenz. Gilbert said the man had his arms flat at his sides for five seconds, doing nothing to provoke the punch.

"It didn't look right," Gilbert, now a Redmond cop, told WW . LaFrenz wasn't charged. When asked about the Hillsboro incident, LaFrenz said, "I don't remember. That was years ago." Did he have regrets about either incident? "No."

David Golliday: Golliday's drunken actions at a bawdy Halloween party attended by off-duty cops and prosecutors sparked a yearlong investigation in 2001. Another cop's fiancée told investigators Golliday grabbed her breasts and reached under her skirt, and later sent cops to her home to pressure her not to complain. He was accused of grabbing at other women, too, as well as swearing at a female district attorney. Police reports also show an unusual level of smack-talk: One cop said, "Golliday was bragging about how he had killed a man with his bare hands in Detroit."

Golliday was demoted from sergeant but not charged. And this was not the first time his mouth and hands caused problems. One evening in 1994, two years after coming to Portland from the Pontiac, Ill., police department outside Chicago, Golliday responded to a family disturbance at a Northeast Portland house. When he asked the 22-year-old son, Christopher Dean, to come down from the porch and talk, Dean replied "Fuck you." Golliday and a partner dragged Dean off the porch and arrested him forcefully with mace. Golliday wrote in his report, "None of this would have happened if he had talked to us with some respect."

Accused of resisting arrest, Dean beat the charge, claiming Golliday took him to a dark, deserted corner of Lloyd Center's parking garage to rough him up before taking him to jail. In court, Golliday said he took Dean to the garage merely to search him. Golliday denied Dean's claim that the cop said, "That's how we take care of things in Chicago," and that he was forced to leave his previous job because he "kicked too many little motherfuckers' assholes like you."

Golliday did not return calls. But Golliday's former boss, retired Pontiac Chief Don Schlosser, confirmed to WW that concern among fellow cops led to Golliday's departure. Said Schlosser, "His methods were not something we wanted to perpetuate in our community."

Joseph Hanousek: Hanousek, who's been the subject of three criminal probes in the past decade, is distrusted not only by Portland lefties but by fellow cops.

In 1996, due to a technical glitch, a ham-radio operator overheard Hanousek talking to a prostitute on his cell phone, and told police the cop seemed to be trading information about upcoming prostitution sweeps for the promise of fellatio. Questioned by investigators, Hanousek, then a nine-year cop, admitted asking the prostitute if she enjoyed giving blow jobs (yes, she said) but denied having sex or planning to.

In 1997, Hanousek's partner and friend, Officer Steven Regalado, was busted for intimidating criminals into helping him sell drugs he'd stolen on the job. Immediately after Regalado's arrest, the police union contacted higher-ups, saying Hanousek had approached them with concerns about his partner just the day before. But some cops suspected Hanousek came forward only because he was tipped off. Two officers told investigators they heard Hanousek say, "I kept telling Regalado he was not smart enough to do that, that he didn't have the organizational skills to pull this off." And one of Regalado's drug buyers told cops she felt Hanousek may have "turned a blind eye." Investigators found evidence suggesting Regalado and Hanousek made a bogus arrest, but there wasn't enough proof to make Hanousek a full-blown suspect.

Shortly thereafter, cops' concerns about Hanousek sparked the infamous Centralgate overtime-fraud investigation. In deposition testimony, Officer Eddie Anderson said Hanousek was one of two officers who "probably... stole the most." Due to lack of evidence, no charges were filed.

Hanousek became a favorite villain of Portland's left in March 2002, after he was caught on video appearing to laugh after blasting a young female protester in the face with red-pepper spray (see "Tales of the Tape," WW , April 2, 2003).

In spring of 2003, citing Hanousek's "extensive history" of failing to show up for trial, county drug prosecutors began refusing to charge any of his arrests. Shortly thereafter, the district attorney's office initiated a criminal probe of a questionable Hanousek arrest, before finding insufficient evidence.

Contacted by WW , Hanousek said he's still a cop because the suspicions were unfounded. "I think everything's been investigated," he said, "but I'm still on the job."

Originally published on WEDNESDAY, 6/29/2005

...a bunch of jerks! Sorry about that dear Salemites!

They royally screwed this one up!

They lied in their police reports.

They did not "stick" to their story; the holes are glaring!

Before arraignment, the DA offered a plea deal: Plead quilty on one count, get 18 months probation and then have the charge reduced to an "infraction". [Like a Jaywalking ticket...]

Apparently that is how these BOZOS do it!

Too many neighbors saw the whole event. The police don't want to admit their lies.

If they were smart, they would DROP ALL CHARGES IMMEDIATELY!

They have maimed me by crippling my right hand.

They have broken more laws than I could count.

You folks will be updated over time.

www.dpsst.state.or.us



Reprinted from the Center for Law Enforcement Ethics, Ethics Roll Call "Listening to the inner voice", Summer 2003 issue. To access more information on this topic, visit www.theilea.org




Once people identify a situation with ethical implications, they need to be able to think it through and act correctly. To help facilitate this, consider the following questions excerpted from an article entitled, "Uncertainty and Principles", by Chris Warren.

The Law Test

Is what you are considering doing illegal? There's very little nuance to this question; if it's illegal, don't do it.

The Newspaper Test

Would you want to read about your actions on the front page of your local paper? If not, you should reconsider.

The Child Test

Ask yourself what you would you tell your child, or a friend, to do if he or she were in your situation. If you wouldn't tell your child or friend to do what you're considering doing, then maybe you should think about it again.

The Harm Test

Who gets hurt if you do this? One way of boiling down a lot of complex ethical principles is to simply not do anything that causes unjustified harm. In business there are, of course, instances where someone may be harmed through a layoff, but the important question is whether or not it's justifiable.

The Smell Test

Does what you're thinking of doing smell? Even if you've asked yourself all the other questions, there still might be something that makes you feel uneasy. If so, talk to somebody else and see if they get the same smell.



PLEASE DISSIMINATE THIS INFORMATION TO ALL PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, February 2004

The Code Of Ethics And A Code Of Silence Cannot Coexist

In public safety agencies, the term "Code of Silence" is used to describe the unspoken rule that encourages people to lend a blind eye, a deaf ear and a mute tongue to unethical, immoral or improper actions on the part of others. The code is an invisible barrier to the free flow of communication. It leads to an unsafe environment, injuries and lawsuits. It also costs otherwise good employees their jobs, reputations and livelihoods. We recognize that it's natural for bonds of friendship and camaraderie to develop among people working together in complex environments such as we have in [public safety].

However, some people take those bonds too far, and see loyalty to their co-workers as a valid basis for the Code of Silence. This is not true. The Code of Silence is a form of corruption. It is a corruption that begins with one person and spreads both in its severity and the number of people involved. The Code of Silence can't exist where higher principles are held as the top
priority; we trust that you will place loyalty to honor and integrity above all else.

The Code of Silence is not a time-honored tradition. It is a hindrance to safe, sound and secure [public safety services] and it demeans each of us as [public safety] professionals.

Pleading ignorance, lack of training, or honest mistakes as excuses for unethical behavior is unacceptable.

Reprinted excerpt from author Max Williams, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections

YOU HAVE GROUNDS TO HAVE EACH OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION REVOKED --

Moral Fitness (Moral Character). All law enforcement officers must be of good moral fitness as determined by a thorough background investigation.
(a) For purposes of this standard, lack of good moral fitness means conduct not restricted to those acts that reflect moral turpitude but rather extending to acts and conduct which would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others, or for the laws of the state and/or the nation.
(b) The following are indicators of a lack of good moral fitness:
(A) Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude;
(B) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(C) Intentional deception or fraud or attempted deception or fraud in any application, examination, or other document for securing certification or eligibility for certification;
(D) Conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(E) Conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to perform as a law enforcement officer. Examples include but are not limited to: Intoxication while on duty, untruthfulness, unauthorized absences from duty not involving extenuating circumstances, or a history of personal habits off the job which would affect the officer's performance on the job which makes the officer both inefficient and otherwise unfit to render effective service because of the agency's and/or public's loss of confidence in the officer's ability to perform competently.


Perjury (ORS 162.065); False Swearing (ORS 162.075); Official Misconduct (ORS 162.415); violation of the Benton County Sheriff's Office Oath of Office and Code of Ethics; and violation of the Benton County Sheriff's Office General Orders, Chapter 7, 7.2.1. Conformance to Law, 7.2.2. Unbecoming Conduct, 7.2.4. Discretion, 7.2.8. Truthfulness and 7.2.16 Neglect of Duty. (Ex. A23.)


The policies include General Order 26.1.1 Standards of Conduct, Truthfulness (Ex. A10) and General Order 72.1.9 Code of Conduct A #11 (Ex. A11). Order 26.1.1 Standards of Conduct, Truthfulness states that employees shall be truthful at all times.

 link to oah.state.or.us

"Discharge for cause" is defined by OAR 259-008-0070(2) (c) and includes, "gross negligence," "insubordination," and "incompetence or gross misconduct." Id. The issue here is whether Respondent's conduct meets any of the definitions of "gross negligence," "insubordination," and "incompetence or gross misconduct." The applicable administrative rule in part provides that:


1. Discharge for cause under OAR 259-008-0070

OAR 259-008-0070(2)(a), provides in relevant part that:

The Department shall deny or revoke the certification of any police officer

(A) Gross Negligence: means where the public safety professional's act or failure to act creates a danger or risk to persons, property, or to the efficient operation of the department, recognizable as a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable public safety professional would observe in a similar circumstance;

(B) Insubordination: means a refusal by a public safety professional to comply with a rule or order where the rule or order was reasonably related to the orderly, efficient, or safe operation of the public or private safety agency and where the public safety professional's refusal to comply with the rule or order constitutes a substantial breach of that person's duties; or
(C) Incompetence or Gross Misconduct: in determining what constitutes "incompetence or gross misconduct," sources the Department may take into account include but are not limited to practices generally followed in the profession, current teaching at public safety training facilities, and technical reports and literature relevant to the fields of law enforcement, telecommunications, or emergency medical dispatch. *****

Public People: Less Privacy

The rule of thumb seems to be: the higher in government, and the more contact with the public, the less privacy you have. Judges, police officers and school teachers probably have less privacy than government auditors or secretaries, on the theory that their character can affect the quality of their public work.

Outside government, the more visible and newsworthy you are, the less privacy you have. Officers of a major labor union or corporation give up some of their privacy. Lawyers who represent famous clients can become public figures, along with journalists, entertainers and professional athletes.

We are still trying to determine how far the media should be allowed to go in invading private lives.

The lines are difficult to draw. Verdicts in one state disagree with those in another. It is new law, growing and being reshaped each time a jury wrestles with the facts in a specific case.

You have almost no privacy from a camera in a public place.

see:  http://www.civilliberties.org/nov15claim1.html

In order to preserve the constitutionality of the statute, we have held that "intimidation" means "intentionally placing another in fear by threats to commit a crime." State v. Mattila, 77 Or App 219, 225, 712 P2d 832, rev den, 301 Or 77 (1986).

False Arrest, Detention or Imprisonment. These coverages are primarily for claims against police, private security services, and businesses employing security guards. Covered claims can include statutory civil rights actions against police and common-law claims for false arrest and detention.

Malicious Prosecution. Malicious prosecution is a companion coverage to false arrest, detention or imprisonment. Both cover claims that the insured abused the legal system. However, malicious prosecution concerns litigation, not imprisonment.


Other Charges?

Filing false police reports

Overall Misconduct

[Discourtesy, rudeness and threatening behavior, Dishonesty (failed to provide policies,) Neglect of Duty, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, Excessive/Unnecessary Force]

Criminal mistreatment: assault, Unnecessary force / Excessive Force with handcuffs, Failure to provide medical care to an injured arrestee


Have you gotten a good civil attorney yet?

Can anyone recommend one?

Officers willfully used unethical, unreasonable, or unlawful conduct in the performance of their jobs on June 9th, 2005 and/or thereafter. The Officers were involved in the following illegal, unethical and shocking acts:

Gross Negligence; Criminal Mistreatment: Criminal Mischief and False Arrest; Intimidation and Threats, False Imprisonment; Kidnapping; Criminal Mistreatment; Assault & Battery; Offensive Physical Contact; Harassment; Malicious; Prosecution; Filing False Police Report; False Swearing or Perjury. Menacing; Recklessly Endangering another Person; Excessive/Unnecessary and Unreasonable Force (force without justification or excuse); Excessive Force with handcuffs; Infliction of injury as punishment; Failure, with deliberate indifference, to provide necessary emergency medical care resulting in potentially permanent damage to arrestee; Unnecessary and Wanton Infliction of Pain.

Moral Turpitude, Lack of Moral Fitness and Character: lack of honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others, or for the laws of the state and/or the nation.

Unethical Conduct: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law; Conspiracy Against Rights; Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation; Conduct that is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice; Manufactured a False Criminal Case; Failed in Sworn Duty, Sworn Oath, and Code of Conduct; Failed to observe established Rules, Policies, and Procedures; Failure to Follow Established Protocol and Directives.

Abuse of Public Office; Official Misconduct and Insubordination (failure to follow policies and procedures); Discourtesy; Rude and Threatening Behavior; Intimidation, Neglect of Duty; Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

Nov. 5, 2004 -- A police chief in his patrol car talking to dispatchers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and may be sued by a man arrested for filming him, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) has ruled. The full court declined to rehear the case last week.

On Jan. 28, 2000, Anthony Johnson filmed Byron Nelson, then-police chief of Sequim, Wash., as he talked with dispatchers from his patrol car. Nelson, who has since retired, was looking for a missing juvenile at a public skateboard park where Johnson was filming friends.

After twice telling Johnson that it was illegal to record conversations without consent, Nelson and another officer physically struggled with Johnson, seized the camera and arrested him. Johnson spent three days in jail.

Johnson was charged with violating the Washington Privacy Act, which bars intercepting or recording a private conversation without the consent of all participants. The trial court dismissed the charges after finding that Nelson had no expectation of privacy because he parked his patrol car with the windows rolled down in a public place.

Johnson sued Nelson, the city, and others in U.S. District Court in Tacoma for violating his First Amendment rights and Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. The district court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed after Johnson appealed.

"It is undisputed that Johnson recorded Chief Nelson while he was on duty performing an official function in a public place," Judge Kim M. Wardlaw wrote for the 2-1 majority. "Johnson did not violate the Privacy Act when he recorded this official, public activity."

Wardlaw also held that Nelson had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he knowingly exposed his conversation to the public.

"If Chief Nelson had wished to keep the radio communications from the public, he should have rolled up the driver's window, and refrained from rolling down a second window, where Johnson was standing next to the car with his video camera pointed inside," Wardlaw wrote.

"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications over police dispatch radio in any event because those communications are knowingly exposed to the public by virtue of their transmission," she added, noting that widely available scanners made the transmission available to the general public.

Judge Ronald M. Gould dissented, arguing that the question of whether the state Privacy Act applied should be sent to the Washington State Supreme Court.

The full court of appeals declined to rehear the case Oct. 25, allowing Johnson's civil rights lawsuit to go forward.

163.190 Menacing

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]


163.195 Recklessly endangering another person. (1) A person commits the crime of recklessly endangering another person if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Recklessly endangering another person is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §96]



163.185 Assault in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if the person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §94; 1975 c.626 §2; 1977 c.297 §1]

You could SUE the city, and others in U.S. District Court for violating your First Amendment rights and Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure.

File criminal charrges in Salem for Official Misconduct in the First Degree (Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $6,250.)

This crime is committed when a public servant intends "to obtain a benefit or to harm another" by "knowingly" performing an "act constituting an unauthorized exercise of official duties."


GOOD LUCK!!! I am counting on you to follow through.

***

Reading these posts makes my stomach churn.

Police misconduct cannot be tolerated. I better hear about this in the newspapers...or you have failed us all!

Have they previously falsified information and perjured themselves?

Was this act designed to remove the photographer to prevent creation of a photographic record?

The most angering aspect of this case is that you are being further victimized by the D.A.'s office.

You were in broad daylight in front of neighborhood witnesses. Your photographs will document the faces of your assailants. I do not understand why no public agency has yet moved to prosecute your assailents. I hope you have contacted the Oregon State police, Marion County Sheriff's office, Salem PD and FBI. I would suggest that you make Citizen's Arrests on your assailants. But you would likely be denied this right, and would likely be victimized further.

Your legal expenses will become prohibitive, as they do for everyone else who tries to fight such injustice. Most will relent. It sounds like you will not. You still risk other inflated charges.

Ultimately, little justice will be obtained, unless specific changes occur regarding the allowed behavior and actions of the law enforcement officials. You canot accept any "solution" that simply increases the "design" of policies and procedures, since they are willingly violated.

The D.A. is brazenly pushing ahead with what can only be termed a malicious prosecution of a crime victim.

If you do not actively contest these charges, the perjury presented in the arresting officers' sworn affidavits would never be questioned. That perjury is perhaps the most frightening aspect of this case.

The ease by which the arresting officers in this case fabricated their stories illuminates what could be a widespread culture of lying. It shows how frighteningly easy it is for some police officers to lie under oath. Citizens simply exercising their right to observe police activities suddenly find themselves exposing a culture of police and prosecutorial corruption. Even though you did not ask for this responsibility, you must take the stand.

Putting the arresting officers on the witness stand, during your trial, will leave the officers two options: admit to filing false arrest reports or commit perjury on the witness stand. If there is conspiracy between the peace officers to commit perjury, then the category of the "color of law" crime increases.

If they choose the second route, they'll be in the extremely difficult position of having to explain the dramatic difference between their accusatory statements and your photographic records, and neighbors' reports.

Spend (invest for us?!) whatever funds will be necessary to make sure that they are cross examined by the best attorneys.

Without EVERYONE'S willingness to defend YOUR rights, ALL of OUR rights will be usurped.

Police disciplinary records not exempt from disclosure --  http://www.rcfp.org/news/1999/1105portland.html

CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IS CRUCIAL TO COMBAT CRIME -- WHAT WERE THESE JOKERS THINKING?!

<<...Salem Oregon Police Misconduct and False Arrest...>>

**** Salem, Oregon Police Department records of an internal investigation of officers' involvement in crime are personnel records, but are NOT exempt from disclosure due to the public's interest in learning about police misconduct.

Police department documents of an internal disciplinary investigation are public despite being personnel records, a state appeals court in Salem ruled in late October.

The court said that even though the documents could be considered personnel records, they were not exempt from disclosure because of the strong public interest in learning about police department impropriety.

The documents resulted from an investigation into allegations that an off-duty Portland police captain used an escort service involved in prostitution and that he improperly used his police department office and telephone.

In late 1997, The Oregonian newspaper in Portland requested access to the documents, and the county district attorney ruled that they should be made public. The city challenged the decision in state court but lost.

Before the state Court of Appeals, the city argued that the documents were exempt from disclosure because they were confidential personnel records. Acknowledging that disciplinary records -- those involving the completed investigation and discipline of a public employee -- were indeed personnel records, the appeals court declined to exempt them from disclosure.

The court cited an exception to the general rule that personnel records are exempt from disclosure, saying the public's interest in the information may trump the employee's interest in keeping it secret.

The captain "is a high ranking police officer. The public has a legitimate interest in confirming his integrity and his ability to enforce the law evan handedly," the court said. "We conclude that the public interest compels disclosure."

The court also said that even though the investigation reports may contain personal information that usually is exempt from disclosure, the public interest in it again required disclosure. Even if the information were personal, the court said, releasing it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy considering the allegations and his position in the police department.

(City of Portland v. Anderson; Media Counsel: Charles F. Hinkle, Portland)

© 1999 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Police disciplinary records not exempt from disclosure

* Department records of an internal investigation of a captain's alleged involvement with prostitutes are personnel records, but are not exempt from disclosure due to the public's interest in learning about police misconduct.

Police department documents of an internal disciplinary investigation are public despite being personnel records, a state appeals court in Salem ruled in late October.

The court said that even though the documents could be considered personnel records, they were not exempt from disclosure because of the strong public interest in learning about police department impropriety.

The documents resulted from an investigation into allegations that an off-duty Portland police captain used an escort service involved in prostitution and that he improperly used his police department office and telephone.

In late 1997, The Oregonian newspaper in Portland requested access to the documents, and the county district attorney ruled that they should be made public. The city challenged the decision in state court but lost.

Before the state Court of Appeals, the city argued that the documents were exempt from disclosure because they were confidential personnel records. Acknowledging that disciplinary records -- those involving the completed investigation and discipline of a public employee -- were indeed personnel records, the appeals court declined to exempt them from disclosure.

The court cited an exception to the general rule that personnel records are exempt from disclosure, saying the public's interest in the information may trump the employee's interest in keeping it secret.

The captain "is a high ranking police officer. The public has a legitimate interest in confirming his integrity and his ability to enforce the law evan handedly," the court said. "We conclude that the public interest compels disclosure."

The court also said that even though the investigation reports may contain personal information that usually is exempt from disclosure, the public interest in it again required disclosure. Even if the information were personal, the court said, releasing it was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy considering the allegations and his position in the police department.

(City of Portland v. Anderson; Media Counsel: Charles F. Hinkle, Portland)

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - There's a memorial in Gloucester, Massachusetts that stands at the city's harbor edge. It's a fisherman leaning into the wind and peering out to the open sea as if searching for a safe route home -- or perhaps a lost companion.

A semicircle of bronze tablets containing the names of more than 10,000 Gloucestermen lost in fishing accidents over the years lies at his feet, a monument to one of America's most dangerous occupations.

In some occupations, danger comes with job. That's seen in the latest national census of fatal occupational injuries from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released Friday.

The good news is that 2004 was one of the safest years on record -- only 5,703 fatal injuries occurred on the job. Still, that was up slightly from the year before when 5,575 died, and there were categories of fatal injuries that had risen more substantially.

Hispanic workers, for example, died at a rate 11 percent higher than 2004. Older worker deaths were up 10 percent.

Fatal injuries from being struck by objects jumped 12 percent...that is now the third most common fatal event, surpassing homicide on the job, which dropped 9 percent to 551. That continued a steep decline from a peak of 1,080 on-the-job murders in 1994.

Highway accidents on the job were the No. 1 killer -- 1,374 died last year, 21 more than the year before.

By occupation

Nearly half of all fatal work injuries occurred among workers who drive or move material around for a living. Truck drivers, forklift operators, trash collectors, and cabbies are all part of this group.

Construction workers had 9 percent more fatalities. Of these, roofers recorded 94 deaths, a sharp increase from the 55 they incurred the year before.

The highest rates of fatal injuries -- the most per worker employed -- occurred among loggers, pilots, and fishermen.

Loggers recorded 85 fatalities in 2004, a rate of 92.4 deaths for every 100,000 workers, more than 22 times the rate among all workers. Loggers deal with tremendous weights when they fell trees and it's not always possible to know exactly where a tree will fall or when. Too, they often work on steep hillsides, in poor weather, and in a hurry.

Aircraft pilots matched that death rate of 92.4 and 109 of them died on the job. Many of these were in the general aviation category, small aircraft manned by bush pilots, air-taxi pilots, and crop-dusters. Their equipment can be old and the maintenance less stringent than among the big airlines, adding to the danger.

The fishing industry is a perennial leader as measured by death rate and 2004 was no different; 38 fishermen died, a rate of 86.4 per 100,000. Drowning is the most common cause of death in this industry, but fishermen also suffer from fatal accidents in handling some of the heavy equipment that the modern fisheries employ.

The 10 most dangerous jobs by fatality rate are:

Rank Occupation Death rate/100,000 Total deaths
1 Logging workers 92.4 85
2 Aircraft pilots 92.4 109
3 Fishing workers 86.4 38
4 Steel workers 47.0 31
5 Refuse collectors 43.2 35
6 Farmers/ranchers 37.5 307
7 Roofers 34.9 94
8 Electricians 30.0 36
9 Drivers/sales 27.6 905
10 Taxi/drivers 24.2 67

 http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/index.htm

Salem, Oregon Police Do Not Have Dangerous Jobs. No Excuse for Blatant Misconduct

Harrassment and Violations of Civil Rights Must Be Eliminated!

Sue the City of Salem and its police officers for intimidation, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention. You also have a menu of other charges, such as theft, harassment, and other crimes that all citizens must live by, including police.

42 U.S.C. 1983--False Imprisonment [42 U.S.C. of the United States Code Section 1983, is the primary civil rights law victims of police misconduct rely upon under federal law.]

Note that "Mere negligence", the failure to exercise due care, is often insufficient for liability. Violating rules against physical contact and threats of physical harm or unlawful arrest would support a claim. Lack of necessary emergency medical attention, inflicting intentional pain or continued threates after arrest would also put the police in a very difficult legal position.

Police are only immune from a lawsuit resulting from the performance of their jobs unless unreasonable, willful, or unlawful conduct is demonstrated, for instance, in the case of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force. Persons bringing false a arrest claim can also assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment civil right against unreasonable seizure.

Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence; Neither the sargent (who detained and arrested you) nor the officer (who transported your) were witnesses to the discussion you had with the corporal. It is his statement only that you allegedly admitted to recording video.

Even if the information the officer relied on later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if the officer reasonably believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

[Paraphrased or excerpted from:  http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/131067.html]


MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

To sustain an action for malicious prosecution, plaintiff has the burden of proving: commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by defendant; termination of proceeding in favor of plaintiff; absence of probable cause for such proceeding; presence of malice; and damages resulting to plaintiff. Gonzalez v. Chicago Steel Rule Die & Fabricators Co., 106 Ill.App.3d 848, 849, 436 N.E.2d 603, 604, 62 Ill.Dec. 577, 578 (1st Dist. 1982).

A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings. Since the argument of recording video or audio in public is not against the law, the falsehood of the event is not material. Whether you were arrested on legal grounds is proven.

The camera and its contents cannot be used in court, since it is not a part of the elements of the crime with which you were charged. If by threats, by persistent questioning or other means of coercion, you are forced to give incriminating information, you can prevent its use against you in court.


FALSE IMPRISONMENT/FALSE ARREST

To sustain an action for false arrest or false imprisonment, plaintiff has the burden of proving: restraint or arrest, against plaintiff's will; caused or procured by defendants; without having reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by plaintiff.

[Paraphrased or excerpted from:  http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/128100.html]

Probable cause is defined as "a state of facts ... as would lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged." Carbaugh v. Peat, 40

Ill.App.2d 37, 47, 189 N.E.2d 14, 24 (2d. Dist. 1963). It is not necessary to verify the correctness of each item of information obtained; it is sufficient to act with reasonable prudence and caution in so proceeding. Turner v. City of Chicago, 91 Ill.App.3d 931, 935, 415 N.E.2d 481, 485, 47 Ill.Dec. 476, 480 (1st Dist. 1980).

"It is the state of mind of the one commencing the [arrest or imprisonment], and not the actual facts of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused which is at issue". Serpico v. Menard, Inc., 927 F.Supp. 276, 279 (N.D.Ill. 1996) citing Burghardt v. Remiyac, 207 Ill.App.3d 402, 565 N.E.2d 1049, 152 Ill.Dec. 367, (2d Dist. 1991).

Probable cause is determined at the time of subscribing a criminal complaint and it is immaterial that the accused thereafter may be found not guilty. Ely v. National Super Markets, Inc., 149 Ill.App.3d at 754, 500 N.E.2d at 124, 102 Ill.Dec. at 502. Probable cause is not supported if the original complaint is false, even if police attempt to add other complaints in order to make a prosecution "stick."


****************
(Source Noted below)

It can also be argued that officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers.

Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene. Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims may raise a defense

of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense may be able to defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation.

CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM

In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.

If person knows and understands risk of injury involved in an activity, and has safer alternatives, then such person assumes risk when she engages in risky activity (Rickey v. Bowen)

If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs.

If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may be liable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police.

[Excerpt from:  http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf]

Published by: Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200; Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com; © 2003 Bert P. Krages II


If you feel your rights have been violated, file a written complaint with police department's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board, or call the ACLU hotline, 1-877-6-PROFILE.


****************
OREGON STATUTES

162.065 Perjury
162.075 False swearing
162.405 Official misconduct 2nd degree
162.415 Official misconduct 1st degree
163.200 Criminal mistreatment 2nd degree
166.155 Intimidation 2nd degree

162.075 False swearing. (1) A person commits the crime of false swearing if the person makes a false sworn statement, knowing it to be false. (2) False swearing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §184]

162.065 Perjury. (1) A person commits the crime of perjury if the person makes a false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, knowing it to be false. (2) Perjury is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §183]

** "Material" means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction. Whether a false statement is "material" in a given factual situation is a question of law.
** "Statement" means any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the representation.
** "Sworn statement" means any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated. [1971 c.743 §182; 1981 c.892 §90]

163.175 Assault in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of assault in the second degree if the person:

(a) Intentionally or knowingly causes serious physical injury to another; or
(b) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon; or
(c) Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
(2) Assault in the second degree is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §93; 1975 c.626 §1; 1977 c.297 §2]


163.190 Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. (2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]


163.195 Recklessly endangering another person. (1) A person commits the crime of recklessly endangering another person if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Recklessly endangering another person is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §96]


163.200 Criminal mistreatment in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the second degree if, with criminal negligence and:

(a) In violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, the person withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that person; or
(b) Having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person,

the person withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that person.
(2) Criminal mistreatment in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) As used in this section, "legal duty" includes but is not limited to a duty created by familial relationship, court order, contractual agreement or statutory or case law. [1973 c.627 §2; 1993 c.364 §1]

163.205 Criminal mistreatment in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if:

(a) The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person; or (b) The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for a dependent person or elderly person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly:
(A) Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person;
(B) Deserts the dependent person or elderly person in a place with the intent to abandon that person;
(C) Leaves the dependent person or elderly person unattended at a place for such a period of time as may be likely to endanger the health or welfare of that person;
(D) Hides the dependent person's or elderly person's money or property or takes the money or property for, or appropriates the money or property to, any use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of the person's responsibility; or
(E) Takes charge of a dependent or elderly person for the purpose of fraud.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Dependent person" means a person who because of either age or a physical or mental disability is dependent upon another to provide for the person's physical needs.
(b) "Elderly person" means a person 65 years of age or older.
(c) "Legal duty" includes but is not limited to a duty created by familial relationship, court order, contractual agreement or statutory or case law.
(3) Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1973 c.627 §3; 1981 c.486 §1; 1993 c.364 §2]

163.225 Kidnapping in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the second degree if, with intent to interfere substantially with another's personal liberty, and without consent or legal authority, the person:

(a) Takes the person from one place to another; or
(b) Secretly confines the person in a place where the person is not likely to be found.
(2) It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (1) of this section if:
(a) The person taken or confined is under 16 years of age; and
(b) The defendant is a relative of that person; and
(c) The sole purpose of the person is to assume control of that person.
(3) Kidnapping in the second degree is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §98]

163.235 Kidnapping in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if the person violates ORS 163.225 with any of the following purposes:

(a) To compel any person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom; or
(b) To hold the victim as a shield or hostage; or
(c) To cause physical injury to the victim; or
(d) To terrorize the victim or another person.
(2) Kidnapping in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §99]


164.015 "Theft" described. A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:

(1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof; or
(2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065; or
(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; or
(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.085; or
(5) Commits theft by receiving as provided in ORS 164.095. [1971 c.743 §123]

164.055 Theft in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree if, by other than extortion, the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015 and:
(a) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $200 or more in a case of theft by receiving, and $750 or more in any other case; or
(c) "Firearm" means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of black powder or smokeless powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.
(3) Theft in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §125; 1973 c.405 §1; 1983 c.740 §32; 1987 c.907 §4; 1991 c.837 §9; 1993 c.252 §5; 1993 c.680 §20]


CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND RELATED OFFENSES

164.345 Criminal mischief in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree if, with intent to cause substantial inconvenience to the owner or to another person, and having no right to do so nor reasonable ground to believe that the person has such right, the person tampers or interferes with property of another. (2) Criminal mischief in the third degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §145]

164.415 Robbery in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree if the person violates ORS 164.395 and the person: (a) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or (b) Uses or attempts to use a dangerous weapon; or (c) Causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to any person. (2) Robbery in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §150]

166.065 Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:
(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or
(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;
(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or (c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person's family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm. (2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person's control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section. (3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person. [1971 c.743 §223; 1981 c.468 §1; 1985 c.498 §1; 1987 c.806 §3; 1995 c.802 §1; 2001 c.870 §2]


*****All of these laws should be considered in light of the standard of care that a reasonable public safety professional would observe in a similar circumstance.

Without involvement from the citizens/neighbors, crime will not be eradicated. The police should have thanked you for your involvement. Not arrested you!

What the hell is going on down there in Salem? Such misconduct scares me. What it the average age of your police force? Someone has to answer for this appalling conduct. it sounds as if at least three badges have got to go, and may more.

Your mayor should be interested in this. Why hasn't the mayor been involved?

Your city council should also become involved.

If the Chief of Police has not yet informed the Mayor and City Council, he is violating his oath. And therefore, the city's governance can be brought into any lawsuit you may decide to file.

AND, all of this is coming from Salem, Oregon? Salem means "PEACE".

Even though you were not killed, this misconduct will lead to such actions, if it is not nipped in the bud RIGHT NOW!

I will be in touch and will provide some money to assist. If anyone needs a donation now, it is you!

GETTING UNCLE SAM TO ENFORCE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS

WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE A COMPLAINT—LAW ENFORCEMENT

Federal criminal civil rights law prohibits law enforcement agents from conspiring to interfere with federally protected rights, depriving rights under color of law, or using or conspiring to use force, or threat of force, to interfere with the free exercise of your civil rights.

To report criminal activities that constitute violations of civil rights, contact:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section, PHB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-3204
Fax: (202) 514-8336
www.usdoj.gov

If you have a complaint of police brutality or the abuse of your rights by the police or other public officials, contact the nearest office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), listed in the front of your telephone directory under "police," or write to the Department of Justice at the address above.

An individual who believes that a law enforcement agency receiving Department of Justice assistance, such as a police or sheriff's department, jail, state police, or corrections system, is discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or age may file a complaint with:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Coordination and Review Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 307-2222
TTY: (202) 307-2678
Fax: (202) 307-0595
www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/index.htm

or

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office for Civil Rights
810 Seventh Street, NW, Room 8124
Washington, DC 20531
(202) 307-0690
TTY: (202) 307-2027
Fax: (202) 616-9865
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocr

Complaints of discrimination on the basis of disability by law enforcement agencies may also be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 307-2227
(800) 514-0301
TTY: (800) 514-0383
Fax: (202) 307-1198

Prisoners

The constitutional rights of inmates are very limited. Prisoners' rights that are protected are:

*

a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which is usually construed to mean the infliction of unnecessary and unrestricted pain; and
*

a right to exercise religious beliefs. Prisoners must be allowed the opportunity to pray and to meet with other inmates to worship within a group. Even individuals in disciplinary detention are entitled to pray and read religious texts.

Also, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the conditions of women's prisons be equal to the conditions under which male prisoners are held, and vice versa.

If you are confined to a Federal Bureau of Prisons institution and believe you have been discriminated against by the institution, you should file a formal written complaint at the institution within 20 calendar days of the incident. Extensions of time will be granted where there is a valid reason for the delay. You should follow the internal grievance procedure unless you think that your complaint is such that you might be adversely affected if the nature of the complaint became known within the institution, in which case you may file the complaint with the appropriate Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Your complaint should include an explanation of why you have chosen to file with the Regional Director. If the complaint alleges that your health or welfare is immediately threatened, the warden must respond through the regional office within 48 hours of receiving the complaint.

If you are confined to a non-federal institution and want to file a complaint about conditions or practices of the institution, follow the internal grievance procedure of the institution. In some prison systems it is necessary to file an institutional grievance before filing suit in federal court.

Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, the Attorney General is authorized to file suit on behalf of inmates at a given institution to redress systematic deprivations of inmates' constitutional rights. To file a complaint with the Attorney General, write to:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-6255
(877) 218-5228
Fax: (202) 514-0212
www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/index.html

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), prisoners with disabilities, particularly prisoners with HIV, may have a right to participate in various services, programs, and activities. Complaints of discrimination under the ADA should be filed with the Department of Justice within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory

 http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect11.htm

POLICE DEVIANCE & ETHICS

A thing won by breaking the rules of the game is not worth winning (Ida Tarbell)

Police work by its very nature involves the slippery slope (the potential for gradual deterioration of socio-moral inhibitions and perceived sense of permissibility for deviant conduct). In fact, the whole unspoken "dark" side of criminal justice work involves putting up with conditions that are at less than usual comfort levels; i.e., "slumming it". Police are routinely involved in undercover work which involves taking on false identities and inducing crime. Police are allowed to make false promises to hostage takers and kidnappers. Police feed disinformation to the media. Police are trained to be deceptive at interviewing and interrogation. Police make all kinds of excuses to get out of nuisance calls. Police trade or sell their days off and desirable work assignments. Police angle themselves into cases requiring court appearances and manipulate the overtime system to earn an average of $5000 more a year. Police strain the truth to protect loved ones and crime victims. Police routinely invade privacy via surveillance and other technological means. Police fighting the drug problem may encounter more loose cash than the gross national product of some small countries. And as with sting operations, there's something that's just plain sick about a system that condones the police making a product, selling the product, and then arresting people for buying the product.

Police deviance is a much broader term than corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group too. The following definitions may be helpful:

*

Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics
*

Corruption -- forbidden acts involving misuse of office for gain
*

Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures
*

Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or relatives (nepotism)

Although this lecture is about deviance, it might be useful to take a brief look at a couple of these other terms. Corruption is criminal conduct that can involve underusing one's authority, overusing one's authority, or profiteering via one's authority. The key element is misuse of official authority; the gain can be personal or for the common good. Corruption is bad because it undermines integrity, the state of policing being whole or undivided. Corruption has been the target of numerous efforts at creating typologies. Here are three of the most popular typologies of corruption:

Knapp:


Larry Sherman:


Barker & Carter:
(1) Grass eaters
(2) Meat eaters (1) Rotten apples/pockets
(2) Pervasive unorganized
(3) Pervasive organized (1) All the wrong reasons (Type I)
(2) All the right reasons (Type II)

Police misconduct is impropriety of office, not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole. The different types of misconduct are often classified as follows:

*

Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use)
*

Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of arrestees)
*

Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach)

THE MYTH OF THE ROTTEN APPLE

According to the Knapp Commission (see boxed insert), which blew the whistle on the standard police explanation for corruption (he/she's a rotten apple in an otherwise clean barrel), "rotten apples" are either weak individuals who have slipped through the screening process or succumbed to the temptations inherent in police work or deviant individuals who continue their deviance in an environment that gives them ample opportunity. Police departments tend to use the rotten apple theory or some variation of the "rogue cop" story to minimize the public backlash against policing after every exposed act of corruption.

A functional explanation may be closer to the truth, and is indeed supported by almost every scholarly observer on the subject. A functional explanation is that corruption is inherent in society's attempt to enforce unenforceable laws. Another approach is the "occupational socialization" explanation, the polar opposite of rotten apple theory that is sometimes called "rotten barrel" theory. According to this view, the very structure of policing (exposure to unsavory characters, forgetting what you learned in the academy, clannishness, and overzealous, misguided approaches to crime control) provides plenty of opportunities to learn the entrenched patterns of deviant police conduct that have been passed down thru generations.

The Knapp Commission (NYPD) was formed in the early 1970s by Mayor Lindsay as a result of the publicity generated by renegade detective Frank Serpico. After months of hearings, the commission found widespread corruption in the NYPD, and made the following recommendations: (1) commanders should be held accountable for their subordinates' actions; (2) commanders should file periodic reports on key areas that would breed corruption; (3) field offices of the Internal Affairs division should be created at all precincts; and (4) undercover informants should be placed in all precincts. Commissioner Patrick Murphy was appointed to clean up the department, which he did by implementing proactive integrity checks, massive transfers of senior personnel, job rotation in key areas, ensuring sufficient funds to pay informants, and cracking down on citizen attempts at bribery.

Years later, in 1986, a scandal broke out in NYPD Brooklyn ("Alamo") precincts. Thirteen officers were indicted for stealing and selling drugs. It became known as the "Buddy Boys" scandal because all the officers stuck together and were tipped off in advance of any internal investigation. When the department tried to implement a job rotation plan in the patrol division, NYPD experienced a work slowdown which forced administrators to abandon the plan. The 1993 Mollen Commission, which was assigned to investigate the scandal, exposed the "Dowd test", a rite of passage in which the rookies are placed into "in or out" predicaments, and basically affirmed the impossibility of ever winning the drug war because of its inherent potential for police corruption. Drugs became a "major" source of graft, as opposed to the Knapp Commission view of it as "minor" graft.

TYPES OF POLICE DEVIANCE
(for the latest research data, see Review Boards)

POLICE GRATUITY

A gratuity is the receipt of free meals, services, or discounts. Nonfederal police usually do not regard these as forms of corruption ("not another lecture on the free cup of coffee or police discount"). These are considered fringe benefits of the job. Nevertheless, they violate the Code of Ethics because they involve financial reward or gain, and they are corruption because the officer has been placed in a compromising position where favors (a "fix") can be reasonably expected in the future. When there is an implied favor (a "wink and nod"), it's called "mooching". When the officer is quite blatant about demanding free services, it's called "chiseling".

Gratuities often lead to things like kickbacks (bribery) for referring business to towing companies, ambulances, or garages. Further up the scale comes pilfering, or stealing (any) company's supplies for personal use. At the extreme, opportunistic theft takes place, with police officers skimming items of value that won't be missed from crime scenes, property rooms, warehouses, or any place they have access to. Theft of items from stores while on patrol is sometimes called "shopping".

POLICE SHAKEDOWN

A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection money. The typical scenario involves gay bars, which are considered the most vulnerable. In some cities (like Boston for example), police are still charged with the power to inspect bars for compliance with liquor regulations. Officers are then in a position to threaten bar owners with violations if they do not make payoffs, and promise to intercept ("fix") any other violation reports processed through department channels. In other cities (like San Francisco, for example), officers would promise extra protection against gay-bashing in return for extra payments. In still other cities (like New Orleans, for example), moonlighting officers would make extra money from "details" in liquor establishments, and be paid extra for overlooking open sex or drug violations. In some cities, police officers have complete control over liquor licenses and even own nearby parking meters. To deal with the gay bar issue, many police departments have tried hiring openly gay recruits.

Shakedowns are also common with strip bars, prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction projects. In each case, the approach and modus operandi are somewhat variable, because each officer subjects the business operator and/or patrons to the shakedown differently.

POLICE PERJURY

This is usually a means to effect an act of corruption, leaving out certain pertinent pieces of information in order to "fix" a criminal prosecution. "Dropsy" evidence is typical, where the officer testifies untruthfully that he/she saw the offender drop some narcotics or contraband. Lies that Miranda warnings have been given, when they haven't, are also typical. Lying in court is called "testilying", and police can do it coolly; they're trained witnesses.

Other actors in the system, supervisors and even judges, are often aware of the perjury. They pretend to believe police officers who they know are lying. Everybody's happy with the system. The cop gets credit for a good bust; the supervisor's arrest statistics look good; the prosecutor racks up another win; the judge gets to give his little lecture without endangering his reelection prospects, the defense lawyer gets his fee in dirty money, and the public is thrilled that another criminal is off the street (Dershowitz 1996).

Most perjury is committed by decent cops who honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free unless they lie about something.

POLICE BRUTALITY

Brutality has been defined as excessive force, namecalling, sarcasm, ridicule, and disrespect (President's Commission 1967). Other commissions have simply used a vague definition as "any violation of due process". Kania and Mackey's (1977) widely-regarded definition is "excessive violence, to an extreme degree, which does not support a legitimate police function." When a citizen charges police brutality, they may be referring to a number of things, including:

*

profane or abusive language
*

commands to move or go home
*

field stops and searches
*

threats of implied violence
*

prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a pistol
*

the actual use of physical force

Only the last one of these (unreasonable and unnecessary actual use of physical force) can be considered police brutality. This is commonly expressed as "more than excessive force". Police perjury and police brutality go hand in hand, as officers who commit brutality will most likely lie on the stand to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit or departmental charges. The reasons why an officer might engage in this kind of conduct are many:

*

a small percentage may have been attracted to police work for the opportunity to enjoy physically abusing and hurting somebody
*

an officer may come to believe "it's a jungle out there"
*

an officer may be provoked and pushed beyond their endurance

The most common reason is occupational socialization and peer support. One common belief is that it's necessary to come down hard on those who resist arrest because they may kill the next police officer who tries to arrest them (so you have to teach 'em a lesson). Another practice is the "screen test", police jargon for applying the brakes on a police vehicle to that the handcuffed prisoner in back will be thrown against the metal protective screen.

Police brutality has been found to be closely associated with riots ever since the Kerner Commission of the 1960s which practically blamed every riot in that decade on the police. Significant police-initiated riots since then include:

*

December 17, 1979 -- Arthur McDuffie, an African American, was riding his motorcycle in Miami, when according to police reports, he popped a wheelie, gave a cop the finger, and sped away. More than a dozen Miami patrol cars gave chase. When caught, at least six white officers jumped him, splitting open his skull. He died four days later. It came out at trial that the police fabricated an explanation that he fell, splitting his head, of his own accord, but an all-white jury acquitted the officers. Three days of racial rioting erupted.
*

March 3, 1991 -- Rodney King, an African American, was detected speeding on a Los Angeles freeway, and apparently refused to pull over for fear a ticket would revoke his probation. Over eleven LAPD units, including a helicopter, gave chase. When stopped, there were two passengers who exited and were taken into custody, but Rodney refused to exit the vehicle. He was savagely dragged out, tasered twice with fifty thousand volts, and kicked or beaten with nightsticks at least fifty-six times by four white officers while twenty-seven other officers stood around watching. Rodney suffered sixteen broken bones and permanent brain damage. The following day, an amateur photographer tried to surrender his videotape of the beating to officials, but instead sold it to KTLA television which aired the tape. The four white officers were acquitted of charges by a Simi Valley jury of ten whites, one Asian, and one Hispanic on April 29, 1992. Five days of racial rioting erupted. A federal trial in 1993 resulted in convictions for two of the four officers.

Criminal justice experts are divided over whether racial differences exist with respect to police use of force (Weisburd et. al. 2000). On the one hand, the Christopher Commission (1991) stated that white officers were somewhat more likely to use excessive force against African-Americans, and watchdog groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have stated a pattern exists, but on the other hand, respected researchers like Adams (1996) and Tonry (1995) as well as the U.S. government itself have never unveiled a pattern.

POLICE PROFANITY

There are many reasons why a police officer would use obscene and profane language. Effective use of verbal communication is one of the skills expected in police work. Concepts such as "command voice" and "command presence" are routinely taught at police training academies. The FCC specifically condemns certain words on radio and television that are "patently offensive", but there's no such mechanism for determining what's offensive with interpersonal communication. The following typology exists:

*

words having religious connotations (e.g., hell, goddamn)
*

words indicating excretory functions (e.g., shit, piss)
*

words connected with sexual functions (e.g., fuck, prick)

Generally, words with religious connotations are considered the least offensive and words connected with sexual functions are considered the most offensive. It's commonly the case, however, that use of such language by police officers is purposive and not a loss of control or catharsis.

*

to gain the attention of citizens who may be less than cooperative
*

to discredit somebody or something, like an alibi defense
*

to establish a dominant-submissive relationship
*

to identify with an in-group, the offender or police subculture
*

to label or degrade an out-group

Of these, the last is of the most concern, since it may reflect the transition of prejudice to discrimination, especially if racial slurs or epithets are involved. On the other hand, profanity for innoculous purposes may very well be something that it is unrealistic to expect will go away in policing or many other contexts.

SEX ON DUTY OR DUTY-RELATED

Contacts with promiscuous females and minimal supervision are part of the job. Sooner or later, every police officer will be propositioned. There are a number of women who are attracted to the uniform or the aura of the occupation. Every police officer will be able to tell you stories about police "groupies". These are women who make the rounds by waving at officers, getting them to stop or pull over, and then set up meetings to have sex with them, or sometimes right then and there. A woman such as this typically has sex with whole departments and hundreds of police officers. Other situations involve:

*

traffic stops -- to get a closer look at the female or information about her
*

fox hunting -- stopping college girls to get the I'll do anything routine
*

voyeurism -- window peeping or interrupting lovers lane couples
*

victim recontacts -- consoling victims who have psychological needs
*

opposite sex strip searches -- touching and/or sex with jail inmates
*

sexual shakedowns -- letting prostitutes go if they perform sex acts

On occasion, one hears about "rogue" officers who coerce women into having sex on duty, "second rapes" of crime victims, and school liaison officers involved with juvenile females, but such instances are rare because of the penalties involved. When police sex cases come to the public attention, the department reaction is usually to reemphasize the code of ethics. Such was the case in the 1985 Rathskellar incident in San Francisco, where at a police academy graduation party, one bashful recruit was handcuffed to a chair, and a prostitute was brought in to perform oral sex on him.

SLEEPING ON DUTY

On the night shift, the police car is sometimes referred to as the "traveling bedroom". In police argot, a "hole" or "coop" is where sleeping takes place, typically the back room of someplace the officer has a key to and can engage in safe "cooping". Police officers who attend college during the day or moonlight at other jobs in order to make a decent living are often involved in this kind of conduct. Numerous court appearances during the day can also be a factor, along with the toll of shift work.

Sleeping on duty, of course, is just an extreme example of goldbricking, the avoidance of work or performing only the amount minimally necessary to satisfy superiors. Goldbricking can take many forms: from ignoring or passing on calls for service to someone else; overlooking suspicious behavior; or engaging in personal business while on duty.

DRINKING & ABUSING DRUGS ON OR OFF DUTY

There are endless opportunities to drink or take drugs while on duty (e.g., victim interviews, shakedowns, contraband disposal), and the reasons for it are many: to get high, addiction, stress, burnout, or alienation from the job. However, even in cases of recreational usage (which doesn't exist, since officers are never off-duty or have any of their "own time"), the potential is there for corruption. The officer must obtain the drugs from some intermediary, involve others in transactions, and open the door to blackmail, shakedowns, ripoffs, and coverups. It sets a bad example for public relations. It will affect judgment, and lead to the greater likelihood of deadly force or traffic accidents. Alcohol and drug use tends to become a systemic problem; others become involved, either supporting or condemning the user. Alcohol and drugs tend to be mixed by police officers because there's more subcultural support for alcoholism; thus the abuser covers up the drug use with alcoholism.

More intriguing is when the police become sellers or dealers of drugs. One occasionally hears stories of officers selling drugs at rock concerts. The motivation here appears to be monetary gain and greed, although there have been some attempts to claim stress or undercover assignment as a defense. In cases were such officers have been disciplined, plea bargained, or arbitrated, the courts have not upheld a job stress/drug connection, although there is some precedent in rulings that job assignment may be a factor in alcoholism.

With the exception of a few places (like Hawaii), police officer associations (POAs) have opposed random drug testing. They especially oppose drug testing after a shooting incident because it taints the officer. They are not generally opposed to drug testing of applicants or probationary employees. They do, of course, support strict discipline of any employee who is involved in dealing drugs.

MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This normally involves the jeopardization of ongoing investigations by "leaking" information to friends, relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal suspects or members of their gang. The officer may be unaware that they are even engaging in this kind of conduct which may involve "pillow talk" in some instances. Failed raids, for example, are often due to a leak in the department.

In other cases, department resources, such as computer systems, may be used to produce criminal history reports for "friends" of the department such as private detectives, consulting firms, or area employers. Passwords can also slip out, granting access to computer network information. In rare cases, police resources are put to use in blackmailing political figures. In general, however, cracking down on secrecy violations has produced more problems than it has solved. Part of the reason for the current fragmented condition of American law enforcement rests upon a false sense of security derived from overdone needs for secrecy.

POLICE ETHICS

Every criminal justice profession and association has "codes" of ethics, "canons" of professional responsibility, "statements" of values, "principles" of conduct, "standards" of practice, and "oaths" of office, along with "pledges", "vows", "maxims", "credos", "prayers", "tenets", and "declarations". Some are directed to God; others to superiors or the profession; and still others to society as a whole. Some are regulatory; others are aspirational; some adhere to utilitarianism; others to deontological ethics; but they all make promises that people commit to keeping as a standard of performance. A code of ethics, if it is to be used for occupational purposes, must set a standard above ordinary morality. Otherwise, there's no need for a code of ethics at all. This is especially relevant to police work, where it's going to take more than just a commitment to being an ordinary, decent human being. Further, it's going to take being a user of the code, not just being a promiser.

A VISION OF ETHICAL POLICING

The ethically ideal police system would be one with integrity and nothing puzzling about it (i.e., there would be no corruption nor misconduct). There would be no us-against-them and no disrespect for the limits of the law or how it's enforced. Everything done in private would be just as if it was done in public. Mistakes would be treated as learning opportunities, but there would be less of them because of widespread adherence to the values of probity, propriety, restraint, reasonableness, and caution. Recruitment, selection, and training mechanisms would be flawless, with promotion on the basis of merit, no one being without ample supervision, and the organization giving its personnel whatever resources they need to perform their work better. There would be "open door" policies to the public, academics, and the media. Nothing the police do or how they do it would come as a surprise to anyone. They would conduct themselves, as August Vollmer once said, in ways that make it impossible for anyone to make a joke about them.

Besides having the public on their side, the police desperately need to have politicians who care more about the public interest than their own political survival or advancement. Ethical policing works best in an ethical climate. However, even if the political leaders are a bunch of bunglers, and even if all society becomes a Sodom and Gomorrah, this is no excuse for the police to abandon their ethics. Their commitment to a code of ethics is unconditional. You don't lower your ideals (or revise your mission statement) just because circumstances in the environment have changed. The true test of character is keeping your faith in the face of adversity.

THE POLICE CODE OF ETHICS

There are few professions that demand so much moral fiber as policing. Police stand in "harm's way" not so much against enemies with bullets, but against enemies skilled in every form of trickery, deceit, feigned ignorance, and deception. That's why the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, stands as a spirited reminder to the higher order of this calling:
As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception; the weak against oppression or intimidation; and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in my thought and deed in both personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duties.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill-will, never employing unnecessary force or violence, and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession -- law enforcement.

[Class assignment/discussion: Take a look at my Police Humor page, follow some of the links, read the jokes, find and explain why some jokes would, in August Vollmer's words, have a deteriorative effect on police ethics and the profession as a whole.]

INTERNET RESOURCES
ACLU Fighting Police Abuse
A Page Devoted to Police Ethics
CopCrimes Database
Law Enforcement Ethics
Human Rights Watch
OICJ's Ethics Online
Police Ethics Network
Police Integrity: New Orleans-style
Police Use of Excessive Force against Black Males
Stop American Police Corruption

PRINTED RESOURCES
Adams, K. (1996) "Measuring the Prevalence of Police Abuse of Force in Police Violence" in W. Geller & H. Toch (eds.) Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barker, T. (1978). An Empirical Study of Police Deviance Other Than Corruption. Journal of Police Science and Administration 6(3): 264-72.
Barker, T. & D. Carter (1990). Fluffing Up the Evidence and Covering Your Ass: Some Conceptual Notes on Police Lying. Deviant Behavior 11: 61-73.
Barker, T. & D. Carter (Eds.) (1994). Police Deviance. Cincinnati: Anderson.
DeLattre, E. (1996). Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing. Washington DC: AEI Press.
Dershowitz, A. (1996). Reasonable Doubts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fyfe, J. (1978). "Reducing the Use of Deadly Force: The New York Experience" in U.S. Department of Justice (ed.), Police Use of Deadly Force. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Human Rights Watch. (1998). Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (the Christopher Commission). (1991). Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Los Angeles: International Creative Management.
Kleinig, J. (1996). Police Ethics. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kania, R. & W. Mackey (1977). Police Violence as a Function of Community Characteristics Criminology 15: 27-48.
Kappeler, V., R. Sluder & G. Alpert (1994). Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Kleinig, J. (1996). The Ethics of Policing. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Laporte, D. (2002). History of Shit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sherman, L. (1974). Police Corruption: A Sociological Perspective. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Stoddard, E. (1968). The Informal Code of Police Deviancy: A Group Approach to Blue-Coat Crime. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 59: 201-13.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malignant Neglect-Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. NY: Oxford University Press.
Trautman, N. (1997). The Cutting Edge of Police Integrity. FL: Ethics Inst.
Weisburd, D. et. al. (2000). "Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority: Findings From a National Study." Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief.

Last updated: 01/29/05
Syllabus for JUS 205
MegaLinks in Criminal Justice

EMPLOYEE REVIEW PROGRAMS

In criminal justice work from time to time, complaints, grievances, and even criminal accusations come up against employees or the whole department. The complainer may be internal or external to the organization, a whistleblower, a snitch, a supervisor, a chronic complainer, a disgruntled citizen who feels they were treated unjustly, but regardless of the origin, ALL complaints should be investigated as thoroughly as investigating a crime and resolved to the best of the complainer's satisfaction in order to restore confidence in the department (you can safely assume every complainer tells 10 other people about it while anyone pleased with the department tells 5 other people). NEVER take complaints lightly, and have written procedures in place (CALEA Standards 52.2.1--52.2.8).

Complaints come in a variety of forms. Most complaints are relatively minor, involving employee sarcasm or discourtesy. Others are about sexual harassment or racism. Others involve excessive use of force, from putting the handcuffs on too tight to giving somebody a pummeling. Some complaints are secondary, meaning that someone is expressing a complaint on behalf of someone else. Others are anonymous, and still others come in the form of harassing phone calls or nuisance reports. People who lost their case in court as well as crime victims may become chronic complainers. It is important to know the motives as well as the causes of the complaint. PERF has established the following typology:

* Crime: the employee is charged with illegal behavior (bribery, theft, perjury, or drug abuse)
* Excessive force: the use or threat of force against someone
* False arrest or imprisonment: improper restraint of someone
* Improper entry: the employee went inside or looked inside somewhere
* Illegal search: the employee went too far in a body, place, or vehicle search
* Harassment: racist, sexist, ageist, or other discriminatory action
* Demeanor: the employee's gesture and bearing was intimidating or of doubtful propriety
* Conduct unbecoming an officer: neglect of duty, drinking or sleeping on duty, false statements
* Minor rule infractions: disrespect, untidiness, tardiness, bad driving, sarcasm, discourtesy

Most complaints are handled fairly quickly. With minor infractions, all it usually takes is for the first-level supervisor to handle it by talking to both employee and complainer. A good supervisor can usually defuse the emotion and work out an agreeable solution. With other complaints, however, the chain of command should be used: (1) first-line supervisor (sgt); (2) middle manager (lt); (3) top manger (capt/chief); (4) hearing or arbitration; (5) courts. It is important not to set up cumbersome procedures.

There is some standardized terminology to refer to the disposition of complaints. The terms are:

* Sustained -- the investigative facts support the charge; true & supported by evidence
* Not Sustained -- the facts are insufficient; insufficient evidence
* Exonerated -- the investigation reveals the matter occured, but it was proper & legal
* Unfounded -- the act did not occur; the complaint is false

And the standard terms for the pattern of progressive discipline that should be followed (and are in most unionized departments) are:

* Oral Reprimand
* Written Reprimand
* Probation
* Suspension
* Demotion
* Dismissal
* De-certification or revocation

Here's some facts about officers brought up on serious charges, involving de-certification (when they loose their training certificates and can no longer work in law enforcement): approximately 500 police officers are "de-certified" every year. These are people who should never have been hired in the first place. Their average age is 32, and they have an average of 7 years of service. 93% are male, 73% are Caucasian, and 70% had a high school degree only. They tend to be "gypsy cops", with an average of at least 2 previous employments in another law enforcement agency. Sheriff's deputies tend to account for a greater percentage of the de-certified population, in terms of their proportions, than municipal police officers. The top ten reasons for de-certification are:

* Making false statements/reports 20%
* Larceny-Theft 12%
* Sex offenses other than rape 10%
* Battery 9%
* Driving under the Influence 5%
* Excessive use of force 5%
* Fraud/Forgery 5%
* Drugs other than cannabis/cocaine 4%
* Weapons offenses 4%
* Cocaine possession or delivery 3%

There has traditionally been two (2) ways to deal with complaints: (1) the INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT; and (2) the CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD.

THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT

Traditionally (based on the Scotland Yard CID model which has been around since the mid-1800s), the IA unit is a highly formalized procedure, involving a board of 3-5 high-ranking officers in the organization. Some departments also put a high-ranking non-sworn individual on this board. An employee fired via an IA action generally can only get their job back by appealing to a district attorney, a legislator, an attorney general, or by filing a civil rights suit. Most of the famous criminal justice commissions throughout history (the Knapp Commission, the President's Commissison, the National Advisory Commission) have recommended against civilian review boards and argued that there's no substitute for a good, strong IA unit.

In organizing an IA unit, the basic choice is between being a reactive or proactive unit. Operationally, these are different activities, but there is also some difference in job title for the IA officer. A reactive unit generally carries out investigations after the fact, so the officer is an investigator. A proactive unit normally carries out surprise inspections to weed out any potential misconduct, so the officer is an inspector. Organizationally, the IA unit should be in a staff-adjutant position to the Chief. In smaller departments, the IA officer is the Chief.

It is important to understand the PURPOSE of an IA unit. They are there, in name first, to protect the public, but in practice, their main intention is to protect the department and help remove unfit employees from this line of work. The standard of proof in all kinds of employee hearings is a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it is fairly easy to get rid of employees this way, if you want. The STEPS of an IA investigation involve:

* Determine the nature and extent of the malpractice -- refer to the academic literature on typologies of misconduct or devise your own typology to determine the nature; then see if the employee acted alone.
* Determine the officer's culpability (motive, mental state) -- the old detective standby of the three B's are often used; Babes, Booze, and Bets (Women, Alcohol, or Gambling).
* Obtain statements from witnesses & collect other evidence -- as if preparing a case for trial.
* Think about the disposition you are going to recommend -- and write the report around it (like the way PSI's are done by probation officers)
* Call the employee in and read them their Bill of Rights -- note: at least 13 states have adopted the "Peace Officers' Bill of Rights", a rather convoluted document outlining the methods of interrogation. In other jurisdictions, whatever collective bargaining agreement exists will detail the rights of employees at this stage.
* Interrogate the employee
* File a report -- and it's at this time, that the employee must be advised they can get a lawyer (although in real life, they probably already have a lawyer).
* Review of the report & its recommended disposition is sent up to someone at the shift command level (Captain) and then it is approved or has its disposition modified and goes to the Chief

THE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD

The idea of a CRB has been around for about forty years (since the early 1960s), and it is a rather informal procedure (compared to the IA unit), consisting of about 7-13 civilians, usually appointed by the mayor, and who usually represent a cross-section of the community. Sometimes, professors from local colleges or universities sit on these boards, but more often, religious and civic leaders of the community are picked.

Poll after poll of the American public says that about 80% favor the use of civilian review boards, yet there is hardly any study demonstrating their effectiveness. They are usually forced onto police departments via pressure from the media and minority groups, they are usually disorganized, they are almost always reactive, and sometimes, they have a short life-span, only existing for about 2-3 years. They can be found all over the country, however, and 30 of the 50 biggest police departments in the U.S. today use civilian review boards.

There is a lot of resistance by police officers to CRBs. They undermine police autonomy, generate police antagonism, and reduce employee morale. Organizationally, they are often housed and operate separately from the police department, like a watchdog group or the Scandinavian ombudsman model. Some of them are simply data (complaint) collection agencies and policy change recommenders. Others operate more like mediation centers. Almost all try to carry out some limited investigation of complaints, given limited resources, and almost all of them have subpoena power to call witnesses and conduct hearings. CRBs work with the media better than IA units, and lawyers are often allowed to participate in the process early on (in contrast to IA units). Some CRBs, however, appoint their own staff as lawyers to defend an employee up on charges. The variety is amazing, but there are generally three (3) basic models of Civilian Review Boards that the various types are lumped into:

* the Civilian Review, Dual Investigation, or Class I model -- In this type, the phrase "dual investigation" is most revealing, because the CRB co-exists with an IA unit. Usually, the CRB investigation is conducted first, then the IA investigation. This is regarded as the strongest model by most scholars.
* the Civilian Input, Shooting Board, OIS (Officer Involved Shooting) Team, or Class II model -- In this type, the CRB is only involved in excessive force complaints or when deadly force is used. Most of these are data collection agencies and policy recommenders, but in some cases, the civilians are trained and go out to the shooting scenes to conduct ballistics tests and make other crime scene inferences.
* the Civilian Monitor, Appeal Board, Mediation, or Class III model -- In this type, the CRB acts as an appeals board for employees who have been disciplined or fired. Most of these are good at handling the media, conducting trial-like adversarial hearings, and influencing department policy. This is the fastest growing and most forward-looking of the three models.

Some cities that have CRBs, and how they are set up include:

Philadelphia (the Philadelphia Police Advisory Board) since 1958 has had a group of 5-8 lawyers, african-american ministers, sociologists, and criminologists who decide if an adversarial hearing is warranted.

New York City (the NY City Civilian Complaint Review Board) since 1966 has had a 7 member board (4 civilians, 3 police) who attempt mediation wherever possible if damage is minimal, speedy hearings if not.

Kansas City (Kansas City's Office of Civilian Complaints) since 1970 has had a centralized complaint handling board of 7 civilians who operate in conjunction with an IA unit under a dual investigation model.

New Orleans (New Orleans Ombudsman Office) since 1972 has had a separate ombudsman office that collects data on complaints against all public employees. (Sometimes, this model of centralizing complaints against all city employees is called the "2nd generation model".) San Jose also uses an ombudsman model.

Berkeley (Berkeley's Police Review Commission) since 1973 has had a board of 9 civilians, each one appointed by a city commissioner, who act as an appeals board, and have a staff of full-time investigators.

Chicago (Chicago Crime Commission) since 1974 has had a separate agency consisting of about 30 full-time investigator/analysts who handle serious complaints and conduct some proactive activities.

Detroit (Detroit Board of Police Commissioners) since 1974 has had a board of 7 mayoral appointees and an office of the Chief Investigator who can set aside the Chief's discipline (serving as an appeals court) as well as handing all original complaints and reviewing IA operations.

Miami-Dade County (Independent Review Panel) since 1980 has had a 7 member board, representing a cross section of the community, that has both watchdog power and the ability to conduct proactive inspections.

Portland (Portland Internal Investigation and Audit Committee) since 1982 has had a 9 member board which publishes reports and handles appeals.

McAllen, TX (Human Relations Committee) since 1983 has had a 7 member board, created by lawsuit against the department, to review IA cases and have input into department policy.

INTERNET RESOURCES
ACLU Fighting Police Abuse
A Page Devoted to Police Ethics
CopCrimes Database
Law Enforcement Ethics
Human Rights Watch
OICJ's Ethics Online
Police Ethics Network
Police Integrity: New Orleans-style
Stop American Police Corruption

PRINTED RESOURCES
Brown, L. (1991). "The Civilian Review Board" The Police Chief July:6-11.
Heffernan, W. (1985). Police Ethics: Hard Choices in Law Enforcement. NY:John Jay Press.
PERF (Police Executive Research Forum). (1985). "Police Agency Handling of Citizen Complaints: A Model Policy Statement" Police Management Today Washington, DC: International City Managers Association.
Sencio, W. (1992). "Complaint Processing: Policy Considerations" The Police Chief July:45-48.
Snow, R. (1992). "Civilian Oversight: Plus or Minus" Law and Order Magazine December:51-56.
Sparrow, M. (1992). "Complaints against the Police and Departmental Management: Making the Connection" The Police Chief Aug:65-73.
Trautman, N. (1997). The Cutting Edge of Police Integrity. FL: Ethics Inst.
Walker, S. & V. Bumphus. (1992). "The Effectiveness of Civilian Review: Observations on Recent Trends and New Issues" American Journal of Police 11(4):1-26.
West, P. (1994). "Investigation and Review of Complaints against Police Officers: An Overview of Issues and Philosophies", pp. 377-407 in T. Barker & D. Carter (eds.) Police Deviance. Cincinatti:Anderson.

Last updated: 01/06/04
Syllabus for JUS 417
MegaLinks in Criminal Justice

Why doesn't the media do a background check on the Portland cops who came from police departments in other cities? It seems to me that much of the problems we are having are caused by these cops. Look at David Golliday. His own former police chief in Pontiac, Illinois, where he came from before starting in POrtland, said there was a problem with him,

Why are we hirning people like this and why are guys like him not fired or charged?

Febuary 18, Salem police came up to my residence supposedly searching to confinscate computer fraud related objects (i;e computers, floppy disks, ect.). They had a warrant only to search and siez our items pertaing to computer related items, They took many other objects outside of what the warrant stated.They found nothing on what they did confinscate.We were targets only because of our medical conditions and our medical marijuana. Their were no computer fraud charges made by the police or DA, and all computer items siezd have since been returned to us. However after realizing they could not make computer fraud charges they then had to make charges on something because they violated many rules of the issued warrant.
The police then called DHS only after making a mess of the home from the search, breaking many items, and opening my medical marijuana grow room and spreading the smell threw out the house. Detectives then lied to DHS "it was like Chee and chong when we arived' menaing that the house was full of smoke intoxicating to sons in the house. Whitch was entirely false, because I never smoke around my childeren.DHS then took both kids out of the house only on what the police said, and the apperance of the house after the police ransacked it, and the smell of the plants becasue of the police leaving my grow room open.
The police took my older son to HOST and on the way interogated him with out reading him his rights. The police officer then got upset because he would not lie and say that his father smoked marijuana with him and or around him and his little brother. then one of the cops sated that "your father is a piece of crap and he is going to jail and other outrageous claims.
DHS also took my baby into custody, within two hours after taking him from my home they took him to salem hospital to run a drug test on him it returned negitve for any narcotics. DHS then put him into a foster home for 18 days after they knew he had no narcotics in him. During this time while my son was under DHS resopnsiblity he did not eat any food at all taking in only a little bit of cows milk. not only was he starved in their custody, but was also phyiscaly abused having several bruises to body parts such as the face, neck, arms, and others.
the current date today is october 28 it has now been exactly 9 months and ten days since they charged me with crimial mistreatment x 2 for exsposing my childeren to marijuana. DHS And DA with held evidence and knowlegde of my babies negitive drug test results for approximintaly 7 months to try and froce me into pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain. We only found out about the exsitence of a drug test being taken only after a court supina of DHS's records involving this case. Still to this day DA has not dropped this case or taken it to trial still trying to intimidate us into taking a plea bargain.

P.S. The first time the police came up my older son used his 4 ammendment to not let them enter my home with out a warrant I still remember the exact words Detective Wiltsey said to him before leaving, they were "I know you know why I am here and i know you did it and i am not going to go away" I thought you would like to know that their has been biest since the begining of this case such as that. (Jeeeeezz what ever happened to innocent tell proven guilty corroupt bastards.
please contact me if you have a case simler to this in any way and maybe we can help eachother out maybe get the media involved or something.

facts about me
1. No criminal history
2. disabled (SLE)
3.father of 3 oldest is captain in New mexico Military Institute, second oldest just graduated, youngest is 2 and is already way ahead for his age groups.( damn i must be a horrible father huh)
4. to many more to name

P.SS. my second oldest son helped me write this because he knows as well as I that i am a great father and we will not admit to being a bad father and a bad family. please help us fight this.

Febuary 18, Salem police came up to my residence supposedly searching to confinscate computer fraud related objects (i;e computers, floppy disks, ect.). They had a warrant only to search and siez our items pertaing to computer related items, They took many other objects outside of what the warrant stated.They found nothing on what they did confinscate.We were targets only because of our medical conditions and our medical marijuana. Their were no computer fraud charges made by the police or DA, and all computer items siezd have since been returned to us. However after realizing they could not make computer fraud charges they then had to make charges on something because they violated many rules of the issued warrant.
The police then called DHS only after making a mess of the home from the search, breaking many items, and opening my medical marijuana grow room and spreading the smell threw out the house. Detectives then lied to DHS "it was like Chee and chong when we arived' menaing that the house was full of smoke intoxicating to sons in the house. Whitch was entirely false, because I never smoke around my childeren.DHS then took both kids out of the house only on what the police said, and the apperance of the house after the police ransacked it, and the smell of the plants becasue of the police leaving my grow room open.
The police took my older son to HOST and on the way interogated him with out reading him his rights. The police officer then got upset because he would not lie and say that his father smoked marijuana with him and or around him and his little brother. then one of the cops sated that "your father is a piece of crap and he is going to jail and other outrageous claims.
DHS also took my baby into custody, within two hours after taking him from my home they took him to salem hospital to run a drug test on him it returned negitve for any narcotics. DHS then put him into a foster home for 18 days after they knew he had no narcotics in him. During this time while my son was under DHS resopnsiblity he did not eat any food at all taking in only a little bit of cows milk. not only was he starved in their custody, but was also phyiscaly abused having several bruises to body parts such as the face, neck, arms, and others.
the current date today is october 28 it has now been exactly 9 months and ten days since they charged me with crimial mistreatment x 2 for exsposing my childeren to marijuana. DHS And DA with held evidence and knowlegde of my babies negitive drug test results for approximintaly 7 months to try and froce me into pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain. We only found out about the exsitence of a drug test being taken only after a court supina of DHS's records involving this case. Still to this day DA has not dropped this case or taken it to trial still trying to intimidate us into taking a plea bargain.

P.S. The first time the police came up my older son used his 4 ammendment to not let them enter my home with out a warrant I still remember the exact words Detective Wiltsey said to him before leaving, they were "I know you know why I am here and i know you did it and i am not going to go away" I thought you would like to know that their has been biest since the begining of this case such as that. (Jeeeeezz what ever happened to innocent tell proven guilty corroupt bastards.
please contact me if you have a case simler to this in any way and maybe we can help eachother out maybe get the media involved or something.

facts about me
1. No criminal history
2. disabled (SLE)
3.father of 3 oldest is captain in New mexico Military Institute, second oldest just graduated, youngest is 2 and is already way ahead for his age groups.( damn i must be a horrible father huh)
4. to many more to name

P.SS. my second oldest son helped me write this because he knows as well as I that i am a great father and we will not admit to being a bad father and a bad family. please help us fight this.

Officers maliciously and willfully used unethical, unreasonable,
willful, or unlawful conduct in the performance of their jobs on and
after June 9th, 2005 and that the Officers were involved in the
following illegal, unethical and shocking acts:

They were discourteous, rude, verbally and physically abusive and
untruthful. They violated criminal intimidation/harassment laws and
violated due process. They (conspired to and then) falsely/unlawfully
stopped, searched, arrested, and imprisoned me. They are responsible
for gross negligence and coercion. They did not have probable cause to
arrest, or for their search and seizure. It is not illegal in the state
of Oregon to photograph in public, nor is it illegal to tape or to
video-record in public, which is what the police lied about me
allegedly having done.

They unlawfully retaliated against me, they ignored my complaints of
exacerbated pain relating to my pre-existing physical disability and
refused to adjust handcuffs when told that they were causing pain and
numbness. When I asked for care, the officers taunted me.

They refused me any and all potential medical attention, they
deliberately used excessive force with handcuffs, they inflicted injury
as punishment/tortured. They failed, with deliberate indifference, to
provide necessary emergency medical care resulting in permanent damage
to arrestee. They deliberately and unnecessarily inflicted pain in the
manner they handcuffed and transported me to jail. This constituted
wanton disregard for the pain they created. In addition, they
intentionally aggravated my existing disability and the injurious
condition they created. These actions are shocking to the conscience
and clearly reflect their criminal brutalization of me (criminal
mistreatment/assault, battery/excessive/deadly force, menacing, and/or
recklessly endangering.)

They violated my civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983; violated my Miranda
rights and they deprived my rights under Color of Law and they conspired
against my rights, continuing to interrogate me after I requested to
speak with an attorney, and while I was in agonizing pain.

The police falsely swore (lied/committed perjury) in their reports in
order to manufacture a false criminal case against me. This
constitutes obstruction of governmental or judicial administration, as
they prepared these police reports "after the fact" and included
"material falsehoods". I was intimidated and threatened by the
officers.

They should suffer the consequences of their insubordination, i.e.,
willing failure to follow a number of established Directives, Policies
and Procedures, and Code of Conduct and their intentional failure to
observe their sworn duty/Oath of Office. They are guilty of criminal
mischief, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct. They performed
official misconduct, dereliction and neglect of duty, and conduct
unbecoming of an officer.

They need to be criminally prosecuted and fired from the force for their
Moral Turpitude, Lack of Moral Fitness and Character; lack of honesty,
lack of fairness, disrespect for the rights of others or for the laws
of the state and/or the nation.

Their conduct involving robbery and/or theft, dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.
They are also pursuing a course of malicious prosecution.

That's just the way it is. It is a result of the evolution of human history, Oregon is where the pure yuck and the pure yum have been distilled. As you know Marion County rules the rules.
And wouldn't you know it, Oregon will be what tips the scales when push comes to shove in the
Grand Republic. So if it is in your nature, be not smarmee rather do what you can do and then
expect the smarmees at your door. patriots act!! patriots act!! I ain't no nativoreegoneeann,
you can do it..

A videotape of the police encounter has been uncovered. However, it will not be used or referenced until after the police have lied on the witness stand.

Therefore, their blatant attempts to cover up the truth and to frame an innocent citizen will lead them to not only lose their jobs, but their freedom!

Subject: SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND TAKE THE TICKET
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:41:03 -0700
From: Carl Worden  wolfeyes00@earthlink.net
To: Oregon Coast News Signal  editor@ocnsignal.com

Ladies & gentlemen:

"Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision allowing police officers to arrest and handcuff anyone for offenses as minor as infractions and punishable by no more than minor fines.

In an age when police abuse of power has hit an all time high, any police officer can now arrest a motorist for a minor traffic violation -- even a jaywalker crossing the street -- and haul them off to jail, book them and make them post bond. In the case of the motorist, his/her accompanying minor children could be taken into "protective" custody and the automobile could be impounded, costing the motorist hundreds of dollars more to get it back, all in addition to the fine for the minor traffic offense.

The opportunity for police to abuse their authority has now been given them as a constitutional right. If you so much as mouth off to a police officer or deny doing what he said you did, you could be going for a very expensive and emotionally traumatic ride. If you so much as remind the police officer of someone who wasn't nice to him as a child, you could be going to jail if he stops you for a traffic violation. So you can exercise your right to free speech and free expression if you want, but don't do it around a police officer if there is even a scintilla of a chance you fractured some obscure law. And because our state and federal legislators have been churning out obscure laws by the hundreds of thousands to make it look like they are accomplishing something, the chances are good that you are violating one of those laws no matter what you are doing.

And mark my words, people: There will be horror stories about to unfold where police officers target specific individuals they don't like for whatever the reason -- even if they had filed a police brutality complaint against the officer -- and that officer and his buddies can now follow that person around until they see even the smallest lapse of compliant driving, and turn that person's life into Hell. And they can do that repeatedly, because the Supreme Court said so today.

So my best advice to you, my friends, is shut your mouth and take the ticket.

Carl F. Worden
Liaison Officer
Southern Oregon Militia

This clearly shows an out of control police department that just plain didn't know what the hell they were doing back on the 9th day of June, 2005

10 Most Dangerous Jobs


By Laura Morsch, CareerBuilder.com

For most of us, the workplace can certainly be stressful, but it's hardly life-threatening. The typical worker has a low risk dying from a work-related injury - the fatality rate for all occupations is 4.1 per 100,000 employed, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But stress can take on a whole new meaning for workers in some industries, who literally risk their lives each day to bring the rest of us basic needs like food and electricity - a fact tragically brought to the national spotlight by the recent deaths of 12 West Virginia mining workers.

In 2004, highway incidents, falls, being struck by a falling object and homicide were the four leading causes of work-related fatalities. The riskiest industries were those in which the workers were frequently threatened by these events:

1. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting - 30.1 deaths per 100,000 employed
2. Mining - 28.3 deaths per 100,000 employed
3. Transportation and warehousing - 17.8 deaths per 100,000 employed
4. Construction - 11.9 deaths per 100,000 employed
5. Utilities - 6.9 deaths per 100,000 employed

Within these and other industry groups, certain occupations saw fatality rates reach as high as 22 times the national average. The BLS lists these occupations, all of which had a minimum of 30 fatalities and 40,000 people employed in 2004, as 10 of the most dangerous in the nation:

1. Logging workers
Fatalities: 92.4 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $30,080
Logging and timber workers duties include cutting down trees and cutting and moving logs, providing the raw material for countless products. The nature of their work puts them at constant risk of being killed by heavy, falling objects.

2. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
Fatalities: 92.4 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $135,430 - but may be much lower for commercial pilots.
Although aircraft pilots and flight engineers have one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation, don't swear off air travel just yet. This category also includes commercial pilots of smaller aircrafts - including crop dusters and air taxis - that are far more likely to crash than your typical 747.

3. Fishers and related workers
Fatalities: 86.4 per 100,000 employed
Median Pay: $28,220
Fishers endure storms, fog, wind and hazardous working conditions before bringing you the fresh salmon on your dinner plate. Perilous weather puts fishers at risk of drowning if their boat capsizes or they fall overboard. And if they suffer serious injuries while at sea, help isn't readily available.

4. Structural iron and steel workers
Fatalities: 47 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $42,410
These workers climb dozens of stories to lay the iron and steel that form buildings, bridges and other structures. Despite strapping on harnesses and other safety gear, structural iron and steel workers face a high risk of fatal injuries from falls.

5. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
Fatalities: 43.2 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $26,950
When refuse and recyclable material collectors take away your trash, they risk traffic accidents and fatal injuries from explosions of hazardous materials. According to a University of Miami study, the leading cause of on-the-job fatalities for these workers is impatient motorists who try to pass the garbage truck and hit the driver.

6. Farmers and ranchers
Fatalities: 37.5 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $38,600
Farmers and ranchers raise animals and plant, cultivate and harvest crops used to produce our food. However, the tractors and machinery used by these workers can be very dangerous: Non-highway vehicle accidents accounted for 40 percent of occupational fatalities for farmers and ranchers in 2004.

7. Roofers
Fatalities: 34.9 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $31,300
When these workers climb atop your house to build or repair your roof, they risk slipping or falling from scaffolds, ladders, or roofs, or burning themselves on hot bitumen.

8. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
Fatalities: 30 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $49,700
When your lights go out, line installers and repairers climb power poles and towers to get your electricity up and running. Power lines are typically high off the ground, so workers are at high risk of injury due to falls. Plus, these workers are often at risk of electrocution from contact with the high-voltage power lines.

9. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
Fatalities: 27.6 per 100,000 employed
Truck driver median pay: $33,870
Driver/sales worker median pay: $20,320
Truck drivers transport goods including cars and livestock, and driver/sales workers deliver and sell their firm's products over established routes. Both groups spend the majority of their time on the road, putting them at high risk of highway vehicle crashes.

10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs
Fatalities: 24.2 per 100,000 employed
Median pay: $19,790
The dangers of shuttling around patrons go far beyond highway crashes. Taxi drivers, who often work alone and carry large amounts of cash, may also find themselves victims of robbery and homicide.


Laura Morsch is a writer for CareerBuilder.com. She researches and writes about job search strategy, career management, hiring trends and workplace issues.