You're free! You have spent 141 days in jail. You lost your job.

August 12, 2018 5:32 AM

Interactive (non)fiction from the Los Angeles Times: You’ve been arrested by a dishonest cop. Can you win in a system set up to protect officers? By Swetha Kannan, Corina Knoll, Maya Lau, Ben Poston, Joel Rubin, Aug. 9, 2018. Read more about this: An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his misconduct was kept secret in court for years, by Corina Knoll , Ben Poston and Maya Lau.

A Times investigation last year identified Ovalle and others on a secret Sheriff’s Department list of deputies whose misconduct included falsely testifying in court, pulling over a motorist and receiving oral sex from her while on patrol, and tipping off a drug dealer’s girlfriend about a narcotics bust.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell wanted to disclose the so-called Brady list of about 300 officers to prosecutors, but the deputies union went to court to stop him.

The state’s Supreme Court will soon decide whether McDonnell and other law enforcement agencies can tell prosecutors if a police witness has a record of serious discipline. An appellate court has ruled they cannot.

While this is focused on California, an earlier article noted that "California is among 22 states that keep officer discipline from the public, but it is the only one that blocks prosecutors from seeing entire police personnel files."

The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project has an article from 2010 on Police Misconduct Disclosure Laws that includes a list, based on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Open Government Guide that contains the open records and meetings laws for all states, including how they may apply to police disciplinary records.

posted by filthy light thief (13 comments total)

If I’m ever selected for a jury and the prosecution’s case hinges on police testimony I’m pretty much guaranteeing at least a hung jury. I wish people (including those who grew up thinking the police were their friends) would come around to the idea that the police have every incentive to lie and very little to tell the truth. Combine that with proven cases of police (and prosecutorial and investigative) misconduct over the years and the fact that they fake evidence whenever it’s convenient and the mere testimony of a police officer is enough to introduce reasonable doubt.

I wish enough people thought the same way and the system would have to change once they figured out police involvement is a hindrance, unions be damned.
posted by mikesch at 7:20 AM on August 12, 2018 [21 favorites]

I was in jail for 166 days, but I was acquitted. I feel vindicated. My life is destroyed, but I'm vindicated.
posted by MythMaker at 7:39 AM on August 12, 2018 [15 favorites]

Also remember remember that jail is for when you are awaiting trial, prison is for when you are convicted. So all of that horseshit rhetoric from Joe Arpaio touting his tent city jails, that was people awaiting trial.
posted by Catblack at 7:51 AM on August 12, 2018 [28 favorites]

Very good example of using a computer game to teach.
posted by doctornemo at 9:05 AM on August 12, 2018 [1 favorite]

If I’m ever selected for a jury and the prosecution’s case hinges on police testimony

Given that the police (or police-adjacent disciplines) collect the physical evidence...
posted by Leon at 9:30 AM on August 12, 2018

Given that the police (or police-adjacent disciplines) collect the physical evidence...

Yup, but there’s a difference between “There’s a clear surveillance photo of this guy breaking into a car” and “a police officer found a random guy half a mile away at 11:30 who had the mentos from the glove compartment with him and the car registration happened to be in the bushes next to him”
posted by mikesch at 11:11 AM on August 12, 2018

Under California’s so-called Pitchess laws, defendants can ask a judge to examine an officer’s personnel records for allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, theft or other acts of “moral turpitude.” Few go through the trouble.

Is it just me, or does this situation seem tailor-made to benefit the rich and powerful? I mean.. there's an extra process you can go through to potentially discredit the police officers testifying against you that a wealthy, well-funded defendant will of course have access to, but which an indigent defendant represented by a public defender generally would not, I'm not imagining that part?
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:01 PM on August 12, 2018 [4 favorites]

Was gonna ask, is this basically the OJ law?
posted by Artw at 12:09 PM on August 12, 2018

I mean.. there's an extra process you can go through to potentially discredit the police officers testifying against you that a wealthy, well-funded defendant will of course have access to, but which an indigent defendant represented by a public defender generally would not, I'm not imagining that part?

Interesting point. Or could it become standard practice for the PD to immediately file a Pitchess motion for every officer on the witness list? I'm sure if this were a good idea some PD office would have already done it. But totally in theory, it sounds like a way to force the conversation.
posted by salvia at 1:08 PM on August 12, 2018

Catblack

Jail is also for people sentanced to less than one year , so usually misdemeanor crimes but could be a felony. So if you are convicted of something and are sentaced to 90 days that would be in jail, if it is 13 months you would go to prison in general. Each state does things slightly differently though.
posted by AlexiaSky at 4:11 PM on August 12, 2018 [1 favorite]

salvia:

Interesting point. Or could it become standard practice for the PD to immediately file a Pitchess motion for every officer on the witness list? I'm sure if this were a good idea some PD office would have already done it. But totally in theory, it sounds like a way to force the conversation.

As described in the article the usual response to a Pitchess motion, assuming the motion is granted at all, is just the name and contact info of persons who have previously made complaints about the officer within the last five years. A well-funded defense with access to researchers and private investigators could potentially turn that into something discrediting. Odds are substantially lower that a public defender with a high caseload and few other resources to devote will have the luxury of pursuing the process.

If a defendant’s Pitchess motion is granted, a representative from the officer’s law enforcement agency meets with the judge in private to go over relevant complaints. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney is allowed in the room.

If a judge decides to turn over anything, it is usually only the name and contact information of someone who made a complaint against the officer within the last five years.

It is then up to the defense attorney to figure out what happened.

posted by Nerd of the North at 5:33 PM on August 12, 2018

the. only. winning. move. is. not. to. play.

(note: not an option for those w/o privilege and trapped this system.)
posted by martin q blank at 7:15 AM on August 13, 2018

I want so much for a law that requires officers found guilty of professional misconduct - of any sort - to be immediately fired. False testimony, planting evidence, excessive force against a detainee, coercion/blackmail... any of it. I want them out, even for a single "small" offense. I want legislatures to start pushing zero tolerance for abuses against the public by the people hired to defend and protect the public.

I don't believe that cop duties are so stressful that we should tolerate some level of criminally abusive behavior from a substantial number of them.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 2:05 PM on August 13, 2018 [2 favorites]