Judge rules Detroit police violated rights during '08 art gallery raid

[ryoder 1,590]

http://ferndale115.com/nuevo/2012/12/09/four-years-later-justice-for-unconstitutional-raid-victims/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi ryoder,

That is but one of the reasons that every year I make a donation to the ACLU.

JerryBaumchen

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Cases like this illustrate perfectly why the notion that our "rights" come from "our creator", and so do not need to be enshrined into law, is just plain delusional.

The news article doesn't say anything about penalties being applied to the police. Maybe that will come in a later proceeding? Anyway it seems obvious that this police action was nothing more or less than an organized shake-down to separate law-abiding citizens from their money by holding their vehicles for ransom. Irrespective of any monetary award to the victims (which will only end up penalizing the citizens of Detroit), the officers who conceived and organized this scheme should be tried for organized crime, and should do jail time. Only a punishment like that will deter other officers from organizing similarly motivated shake-downs.

Kudos to the ACLU.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

...the officers who conceived and organized this scheme should be tried for organized crime, and should do jail time. Only a punishment like that will deter other officers from organizing similarly motivated shake-downs.

I've long believed that any time an LEO *knowingly* frames or falsely arrests someone, the LEO should get the same punishment as the charges he filed.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

...the officers who conceived and organized this scheme should be tried for organized crime, and should do jail time. Only a punishment like that will deter other officers from organizing similarly motivated shake-downs.

I've long believed that any time an LEO *knowingly* frames or falsely arrests someone, the LEO should get the same punishment as the charges he filed.

correct, imo, in spirit, but implementation is difficult. Establishing clear proof without an admission is difficult. You'd need to at least permit plea bargains to get that, or they'd never own up, and the innocent may never get redress.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

...the officers who conceived and organized this scheme should be tried for organized crime, and should do jail time. Only a punishment like that will deter other officers from organizing similarly motivated shake-downs.

I've long believed that any time an LEO *knowingly* frames or falsely arrests someone, the LEO should get the same punishment as the charges he filed.

The problem is if the department supports or instructs such action (with PD lawyer approval). It may be disgusting to the average citizen, and overturned when you get a REALLY good test case like this, but no officer is going to refuse a direct order from a supervisor that's cleared by the lawyer. Not if he wants to keep his job, anyway.

Also, you're trusting a media account. Unless you read a DPD press release or perused the court documents, you only know what the reporters/editors want you to hear. And their job is what? Selling advertising. They're the biggest marketing conglomerate out there. Just something to bear in mind...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Also, you're trusting a media account. Unless you read a DPD press release or perused the court documents, you only know what the reporters/editors want you to hear. And their job is what? Selling advertising. They're the biggest marketing conglomerate out there. Just something to bear in mind...

The full ruling may be found here. To save you time, this is the ruling (from page 3 and 4)(bold added by me to emphasize the most significant bits):

"The Court holds that:
1. Plaintiffs establish several violations of constitutional rights:
A. Defendants had no probable cause to arrest them; Defendants
were unaware of whether each Plaintiff had engaged in criminal
conduct.
B. Defendants had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
search them.
C. Defendants had no probable cause to seize vehicles.
2. The right of Plaintiffs to be secure in their persons and property is clearly
established.
3. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; any mistake they made
was not reasonable under the circumstances.
4. The individual Defendants acted pursuant to a custom or policy of the City
to enforce its ordinance, City Code § 38-5-1 (“disorderly conduct
ordinance”), even when there is no probable cause to believe that the
persons against whom it is being enforced, have knowledge of illegal
activity. In other words, the City had a practice of arresting persons for
loitering and searching them, even when there was no probable cause to
believe they intended to engage in unlawful conduct.
2:10-cv-10675-VAR-MKM Doc # 115 Filed 12/04/12 Pg 3 of 32 Pg ID 3477
4
5. The individual Defendants acted pursuant to a custom or policy of the City
to enforce M.C.L §600.3801 (“Nuisance Abatement” statute) against cars,
even when there was no probable cause to believe that the cars were
knowingly used for an illegal purpose described in the statute. This
custom or policy of the City allowed police officers to seize vehicles simply
because they were driven to a location where unlawful conduct occurred."

The news story was accurate in its description of the ruling. The police department had long had a policy of raiding establishments, using some pretext to charge everyone in the building with loitering, seizing everyone's vehicles, and charging people almost $1,000 to get their cars back.

Quote

Quote

I've long believed that any time an LEO *knowingly* frames or falsely arrests someone, the LEO should get the same punishment as the charges he filed.

The problem is if the department supports or instructs such action (with PD lawyer approval). It may be disgusting to the average citizen, and overturned when you get a REALLY good test case like this, but no officer is going to refuse a direct order from a supervisor that's cleared by the lawyer. Not if he wants to keep his job, anyway.

I don't know about "disgusting", maybe "outrage"is a better term. Is "knowingly framing or falsely arresting someone" common practice amongst police departments, to your knowledge? Do you personally know of cases in which police officers framed suspects in order to make an arrest? If officers will go along with such a violation of basic constitutional rights to "keep their jobs", maybe the threat of getting "the same punishment as the charges he filed" is inadequate. Maybe three times the punishment might be enough incentive to encourage police officers to respect the bill of rights?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sounds like DPD is broke and is looking or ways to raise funds.

Or the pound writes good cheques to the right people.

Cops are the biggest gang out there. Always telling people they should come forward and snitch. Yet, when it comes to their own bad apples...they are about as tight lipped as they get.