An embarrassing anniversary arrives for a broken RCMP complaint system

November 21, 2011
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

An embarrassing anniversary arrives for a broken RCMP complaint system

November 23 is the second anniversary of B.C.’s Solicitor General filing a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (“CPC”) in relation to the 2003 death of Clayton Alvin Willey. At the time of the complaint, the Solicitor General called the investigation into the details of Willey’s death a matter of “confidence in the RCMP.” Two years later, the investigation by the CPC has not been completed.

The CPC is the same organization recently asked to conduct a multi-year investigation of sexual harassment complaints by female RCMP police and civilian staff.

“Ensuring standards of performance are met on complaints is a concern for all British Columbians. It should be a concern of the RCMP as well,” said Robert Holmes, Q.C., President of the BCCLA. “It is imperative that the Solicitor General ensure that the RCMP and CPC agree to appropriate performance measures if BC is to enter into a new contract. It shouldn’t take two years to respond to complaints. If the CPC and RCMP are going to allow multi-year delays in complaint investigations, they’re effectively thumbing their noses at those they’re supposed to serve.”

Clayton Alvin Willey died shortly after being removed from the Prince George RCMP detachment by ambulance. He had been Tasered multiple times while hog tied, and had been dragged while hog tied from the back of an RCMP SUV and allowed to drop, full weight, on his head and chest, fracturing his skull and ribs. RCMP video showed Mr. Willey being dragged through the RCMP detachment and receiving multiple Taser applications. The 2003 case rose to prominence again in 2009 when the BCCLA and Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs publicly released details contained on an RCMP surveillance video of the death and called for the release of the video.

“Clayton Alvin Willey’s death is a black mark on the record of service of the RCMP in BC,” noted Holmes. “We want timely investigations and prompt accountability for any who failed to live up to the standards the RCMP is supposed to live by. Instead, we are left knowing that another season’s ice is forming on the Ottawa River and that eight years after Mr. Willey died in 2003, we still have no answers from the force or the Complaints Commissioner whose job it is to uphold the public’s trust.”

Editorial: City leaders mishandled Zehm case

The friend who sent me a link to this editorial asked: "Where have all the heroes gone? Are there really none left?"

One really is left to wonder.

August 14, 2011
The Spokesman-Review

Risk management is all about dollars, but there are times when leaders must peer above the bottom line to protect and defend a community’s values. The Otto Zehm tragedy is a perfect example.

Back in June 2006, the Zehm family sought an apology and retractions from the City of Spokane after the Police Department held a news conference about the fatal confrontation with the mentally disabled janitor. The family and its attorneys had seen the damning convenience store video that the rest of the public would see in July. Assistant City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi replied in a letter that the city stood by its version of events. The city essentially blamed Zehm for the outcome, defended the actions of the officers and chided those who had been “hyper-critical.” The letter includes this line:

“There are many other facts that go into the analysis of the use of force by Officer Thompson, including how and when he used the baton and Taser. In short, Chief Nicks will not, as you request, publicly retract what you characterize as ‘misrepresent- ations’ because they are not misrepresentations.”

Five years later, we learn that Jim Nicks did retract his views when placed under oath in front of a federal grand jury. So, it’s clear that the peddlers of misrepresentations worked for the city. Many still do. To borrow a term from the medical examiner’s report, perhaps they acted in a state of excited delirium when they viewed the video and discovered their initial story was filled with falsehoods.

Whatever the case, nobody in a position of leadership bucked the city’s hyper-defensive stance and stepped forward to represent the truth. Nobody said, “Enough!”

Neither the mayor at the time, Dennis Hession, nor the one who followed, Mary Verner, stood up to the department. Verner even defended Officer Karl Thompson’s actions. Once he got around to watching the damning convenience store video, Spokane County Prosecutor Steve Tucker punted the case to the feds.

Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick was hired after the incident, but she retained Nicks as second in command, where he remains. “You lie, you die” is her mantra. We shall see. Treppiedi remains in the employ of the city, despite his aggressive actions in this case (and others) to confront anyone who would dare challenge the Police Department.

Five years after Zehm’s death nobody has suffered any consequences. Thompson still might. He faces trial in federal court.

To recap, Zehm did not lunge at Thompson, as the public was told. He reacted defensively to an assault in which baton strikes and Tasering were not warranted, according to the acting police chief at the time. He died after being subdued and tied up.

Rather than apologize and face the consequences, the Police Department and the city embarked on an extended masquerade and then wondered why the public demanded an ombudsman with strong oversight powers. Even today, we don’t have that, because police officers won’t drop their resistance to independent investigations.

In the end, taxpayers will pay for this tragedy. In exchange, they ought to at least get assurances from city leaders that trampling truth and justice is no longer an acceptable risk management strategy.

Fullerton (California) to hire veteran watchdog to review Police Department

I am heartened to learn that this outrageous case of police brutality will be investigated by an independent investigator. I know nothing about Michael Gennaco, but hopefully he knows what he's doing and can perform an unbiased and truly independent investigation. Justice must be seen to be done, to be done. The officers who beat Kelly Thomas to death must be punished to the full extent of the law.

And I quote from below: "Fullerton's acting police chief, Kevin Hamilton, acknowledged this week that the department had allowed police officers involved in the altercation with Thomas to watch a video that captures the incident before writing their reports about it. Hamilton said supervisors allowed the review so that the officers would have a chance to refresh their memory and write an accurate account of the incident."

August 12, 2011
Los Angeles Times

The Fullerton City Council on Friday directed its attorney to draw up a contract to hire a police watchdog to review its embattled Police Department in the wake of a homeless man's deadly encounter with six officers.

The council is expected to approve the contract next week with Michael Gennaco to conduct an independent review of Kelly Thomas' death. Gennaco oversees Los Angeles County's Office of Independent Review and daily scrutinizes the L.A. County Sheriff's Department's actions.

The council's decision came after a closed-door meeting to discuss Kelly Thomas' death and its impact on the city. In the last week, Police Chief Michael Sellers has taken a medical leave and Thomas' parents have filed a claim against the city, alleging police brutality.

Also on Friday, local blogger Tony Bushala submitted paperwork to the City Clerk to begin a recall petition against Mayor F. Richard Jones and City Council members Pat McKinley and Don Bankhead. The three, along with Sellers, have come under fire for their silence on the Thomas case.

"The best department in this country could improve, and that's what we're looking to do," Gennaco said. "I can't tell you, because I don't know, where Fullerton falls on the range." He estimated the contract would run from $50,000 to $70,000.

The deadly incident occurred July 5 while officers were investigating reports of someone trying to break into cars at the downtown transit center. They tried to search Thomas' backpack.

The encounter escalated after Thomas ran. Witnesses said officers beat and kicked Thomas and used a Taser on him multiple times. He died five days later after being removed from life support.

Gennaco is former head of the civil rights section of the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, overseeing investigations of police misconduct and hate-crime cases.

The circumstances surrounding Thomas' death are already under criminal investigation by the FBI and Orange County District Attorney's office.

Fullerton's acting police chief, Kevin Hamilton, acknowledged this week that the department had allowed police officers involved in the altercation with Thomas to watch a video that captures the incident before writing their reports about it.

Hamilton said supervisors allowed the review so that the officers would have a chance to refresh their memory and write an accurate account of the incident.

Kelly Thomas' Father: "I Need the Truth"

August 12, 2011
Jonathan Lloyd, NBC LA

Ron Thomas stood next to pictures of his son's bloodied face Friday during a news conference and calmly expressed the outrage many have felt since the death of his son more than one month ago.

"I need the truth," said Thomas. "You may have noticed I've been able to apply some pressure. I'll continue to do so."

Thomas' son, Kelly, died five days after a July 5 altercation with Fullerton police. At Friday's news conference in Century City, Thomas spoke about his meeting earlier in the day with the Orange County District Attorney and his attorney outlined their efforts to learn more about his son's death.

Attorney Garo Mardirossian said he is trying to obtain a videotape and police reports associated with the case. He said he hopes that someone involved in the altercation at a Fullerton transit station will step forward.

"We don't believe all six of these officers are equally culpable," Mardirossian said at the Century City news conference. "We believe at least three were pretty bad. We're hoping that one or two of these officers will come forward and break the code of silence. Tell us what happened. Why did they continue to beat Kelly Thomas after he was completely motionless?"

"Our aim is to bring out all the evidence. Show us what these six officers have seen."

Mardirossian was referring to a report that officers in the case were allowed to see a videotape of the altercation before they wrote their case reports. Supervisors allowed the review of the footage so that the officers would have a chance to refresh their memory and write a more accurate account of the incident, according to remarks by acting Chief Kevin Hamilton published in the Los Angeles Times.

Thomas said the DA assured him Friday that he would be able to see the video.

"Personally, I will never be able to watch that video myself," Thomas said.

Thomas said his expectations of the meeting with the DA were tempered by an earlier one-on-one with the Fullerton police chief -- who is now on medical leave -- and the fact that the investigation is ongoing. He said he was told it would "not be much longer" before he heard from the office regarding charges.

"It went ok," said Thomas of the meeting. "I knew going in there, there were things he would not answer. But there were important things I had to get across to him, such as, why is it necessary to beat somebody so severely in the head and face, to break the bones in and around the face area? They were spending so much time on his head and face, why didn't they just handcuff him?"

After serving in the Army, Thomas joined the Orange County Sheriff's Department. He said he has taught arrest control techniques.

His 37-year-old son, a homeless man with mental illness, was hospitalized after an altercation July 5 with officers who were responding to a report of vehicle break-ins at the Fullerton Transportation Center. Kelly Thomas was removed from life support five days later.

At the new conference, Thomas showed a photograph of Kelly Thomas that he took two days after the beating. It shows his son's severely injured face as he was in a hospital bed.

"I don't know why I took the pictures, I just did," said Thomas. "It brings to mind the question, how would they feel if someone did this to their son or daughter?"

Earlier this week, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas told NBC4 there is no evidence to show the officers intended to kill Kelly Thomas, but they are still trying to determine if officers used excessive force in his death.

On Thursday, the family of Kelly Thomas filed a claim -- a precursor to a lawsuit -- against the city. The claim alleges excessive force in the July 5 arrest at the Fullerton Transportation Center.

According to the claim, officers "in unison severely beat (Thomas) with their fists and with objects and subjected (Thomas) to excessive applications of Taser electricity and to numerous forms of excessive and deadly force under circumstances in which (Thomas) was subdued and restrained and represented no threat of harm to the Fullerton police officers, causing the death (of Thomas)."

During a closed-door special session Friday, council members considered hiring outside counsel to conduct an independent review.

At about the same time the council was meeting, residents submitted recall paperwork for three city officials. Fullerton residents plan another rally for Saturday at the police department.

City reconsiders Zehm strategy

August 10, 2011
Thomas Clouse, The Spokesman-Review

The Spokane Police Department’s second-in-command believes an officer didn’t follow department policy in the fatal 2006 confrontation with Otto Zehm, contradicting his previous statements.

That revelation prompted Spokane Mayor Mary Verner to say Tuesday that the city is re-evaluating its legal strategy.

The disclosure, contained in documents recently filed in federal court, includes admissions from Assistant Police Chief Jim Nicks – then acting chief – that Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr. violated department use-of-force policies and that detectives failed to thoroughly investigate the convenience store beating on March 18, 2006. Zehm died two days later.

“Based on the video, during Officer Thompson’s initial engagement of Otto Zehm, Mr. Zehm appears to be ‘active resistant’ and is not assaultive toward the officer. Therefore Officer Thompson was not authorized to utilize an impact weapon on and strike Zehm,” Nicks said, according to the court records.

The testimony is a reversal of what Nicks said the night Zehm was beaten, Tasered and hogtied. It also contradicts the city’s position that its officers handled the case properly, and that Zehm bore responsibility for the escalation of force by continuing to flail as officers beat him.

Nicks’ 2008 grand jury testimony became a key part of the June 19, 2009, indictment charging Thompson with using unreasonable force and lying to investigators. Indications that Nicks would testify for prosecutors became public in March 2010, but Tuesday was the first time any city official acknowledged a discrepancy in their public portrayals of the event.

In a prepared statement, Verner said, “Assistant Chief Nicks’ affidavit is consistent with what (Assistant) U.S. Attorney (Timothy) Durkin indicated the Assistant Chief would testify to in a legal filing in April 2010. As we did then, we are evaluating this information in light of the case the City is involved in – the separate civil case.”

Attorney Breean Beggs, who along with Jeffry Finer, is representing the mother and estate of the 36-year-old mentally ill janitor, said Nicks’ declaration in the criminal case essentially means that the civil case against Thompson and the city is over.

“Nicks speaks for the city. The only remaining thing left for the civil case is the nature and the extent of the damages,” Beggs said.

The tragedy began after two young women erroneously reported that Zehm stole money from their accounts at a nearby ATM. Thompson responded to the call, approached Zehm inside a Zip Trip convenience store and immediately began beating him with a baton. The confrontation lasted several minutes and several other officers responded. They eventually hogtied Zehm and placed a plastic mask over his face before he stopped breathing.

Court records indicate that officers reviewed videotapes from the convenience store on the night of the incident, passed information onto Nicks, who then described a “very horrific fight. The officers were definitely within the (department) policy. … The officers used the lowest level of force possible.”

After Beggs and Finer filed a $2.9 million civil claim against Spokane, city attorneys responded with a 56-page denial on June 18, 2009. That denial blamed Zehm for his own death.

“Any injury or damage suffered by Mr. Zehm was caused solely by reason of his conduct and willful resistance,” the city’s response states.

Beggs said it’s now clear that city officials already knew, or should have known, about Nicks’ testimony to the grand jury before they wrote that reply.

“I’m waiting for them to explain to us why they thought it was better not to reveal what they knew about the case from the beginning,” Beggs said. “All this information is going to come out. So why not get it out so the public has all the facts and so the case can get resolved?”

Verner indicated she hadn’t read Nicks’ declaration on Monday night when questioned by The Spokesman-Review. “I’m certainly going to review it carefully to see how it affects the city’s position in the civil and criminal case,” she said.

Then on Tuesday morning, Verner issued the statement saying the city must allow the legal process to run its course.

“Ultimately, we, too, are seeking an outcome that is just and fair, based on all the evidence and circumstances. The City of Spokane and I are committed to open and transparent government, and this is part of the process. Our employees must tell the truth as they see it.”

If that’s the goal, Verner and city attorneys stumbled along the way, said local attorney James Sweetser, who served as Spokane County Prosecutor from 1995-’99.

“I think the city officials and the litigators at the city have to realize they represent the citizens,” Sweetser said. “Even if the judgment may be paid by taxpayers’ money, full disclosure and honesty has to take precedence over tricky litigation tactics.”

According to court records filed Friday, Nicks is prepared to testify in Thompson’s upcoming federal trial that major crimes detectives failed to analyze the video of the confrontation and compare it to Thompson’s statement; they never followed up on a report from an ambulance crew that Thompson struck Zehm in the head with a baton; and his own review of the video shows that Thompson violated several policies and procedures by applying unjustified force against the retreating Zehm.

Nicks also said, among a list of concerns, that Thompson did not stop and engage Zehm with verbal commands as the officer – who continues to earn $76,000 a year as the investigation stretches past five years – later described to detectives.

Thompson’s immediate use of a baton on the retreating Zehm “was a level of force higher than that authorized by the Spokane Police Department’s policies and procedures governing the use of force on public citizens.”

And the use of a Taser, when it appeared that Zehm had stopped resisting, was “not authorized” and violated department policies. Nicks also said he expressed all the listed concerns to Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, who along with Nicks declined comment Tuesday through spokeswoman Officer Jennifer DeRuwe.

Carl Oreskovich, who was hired by the city in 2008 to prepare both civil and criminal defenses for Thompson, said he and law partner Steven Lamberson, have filed a motion seeking to exclude Nicks’ testimony. That motion was originally filed June 4, 2010, the day they queried Nicks about the full nature of his grand jury testimony.

“My recollection was he told us during the course of the interview that he didn’t consider himself an expert on use of force,” Oreskovich said. “If he doesn’t qualify as an expert, then his opinion is irrelevant.”

Nicks stated in court records that he has spent the majority of his career reviewing officer reports to determine whether their use of force was justified. Ultimately, U.S. District Court Judge Fred Van Sickle will decide whether Nicks testifies.

Sweetser, the former prosecutor, said the public shouldn’t have to wait until a police official testifies under oath before the full story comes out.

“That’s what the public expects. They don’t expect the city to obfuscate and mislead and try to trick public opinion,” he said. “That ultimately undermines confidence in government.”

Shawn Vestal: Truth about Zehm sure took a while

"All it took was an inside investigation, an outside investigation, a lawsuit, public pressure to hire a police ombudsman, an FBI investigation, five years, 20 weeks and one day to drag the truth out into the light."

August 10, 2011
Shawn Vestal, The Spokesman-Review

It took just five years, 20 weeks and a day.

But finally we’re hearing the truth about Otto Zehm from Jim Nicks.

In a statement filed Friday in the federal case against Officer Karl Thompson, Nicks – who was the acting chief when Thompson and other officers confronted, beat, Tasered and hog-tied Zehm at a Zip Trip on March 18, 2006 – says Thompson’s account of the confrontation is factually wrong, his actions were improper and the subsequent police investigation of the incident was insufficient.

Nicks, stunningly, notes that there are a lot of “glaring inconsistencies” between the statements of Karl Thompson and the evidence.

He didn’t have much to say about the glaring inconsistencies between the statements of Jim Nicks and the statements of Jim Nicks.

The night Zehm went on his ill-fated shopping trip for candy and pop, Nicks rushed to the scene. So did City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi. Such was their dedication to the truth that they came out to a crime scene on a Saturday night, to get right to the bottom of things.

Which they very, very quickly did.

I happened to be on the weekend cops shift that Saturday night. I was at the convenience store, outside the crime-scene tape, trying to get a little information before a fast-approaching deadline. Nicks eventually came out and declared that the officers involved had followed all the department’s policies. And – hey, no contradiction here – he assured citizens that there would be a full investigation.

Even then – before Zehm had died, before much of anything was known about what happened – it was obviously a truth-challenged statement. Jim Nicks may not have known then what he knows now. But he did not know what he said, either.

As has become obvious.

“The officers were definitely within the (department) policy,” he said that night. “The officers used the lowest level of force possible.”

A few months later, Nicks said, “Karl had a lawful right to use the amount of force necessary to gain control of the suspect with the belief that Officer Thompson was about to be pushed, hit or charged. With that in mind, Thompson was within policy and training to use a nightstick and Taser in the manner which he did.”

Between then and now, Nicks has made a slow, gradual journey toward the light, apparently – while sticking up for Thompson and retailing obvious whoppers, such as Zehm’s fictional “lunge” toward Thompson, a tale that was first told that Saturday night outside the Zip Trip.

But then, sometime before Thompson’s June 19, 2009, federal indictment, Nicks apparently managed to take a peek at the store’s videotape. He testified to the contradictions in Thompson’s testimony before a grand jury. In June 2010, he approached Thompson’s defense team and told them about his concerns. On Friday, his statement was filed in federal court.

Better late than never, I guess. The thing is, all this truth-telling remained under wraps while the city continued to play hardball and cover its butt and blame Zehm and issue no-comments. But back when all Nicks had to spread was B.S., nobody seemed to mind.

If you’ve followed the case, reading Nicks’ current statement is breathtaking. Nicks says Zehm did not assault Thompson, lunge at him or try to punch him – Zehm was “retreating” and “non-assaultive.” Nicks now says Thompson should not have Tasered Zehm, or gone after him as quickly as he did with a baton – literally within a couple seconds. Thompson should not have used “vertical” blows to Zehm’s head.

Thompson, Nicks says, said a lot of things that are simply not supported by the evidence, and he points them out one by one. In particular, he notes time and again that Thompson’s testimony contradicts the store’s security video.

Which has only been available to police since … the night of the fight.

Five years, 20 weeks and one day. That’s how long it took for the acting police chief’s truthful account to emerge.

Nicks’ statement includes several eye-openers. When the cops interviewed Thompson about what happened, they gave him a nice, long, off-the-record interview, followed by a lunch break, followed by an on-the-record interview. Which they later allowed him the opportunity to correct.

Then there was this gem: “The SPD Major Crimes Unit also failed to perform a side-by-side analysis and comparison of Officer Thompson’s recorded statement against the objectively recorded Zip Trip store security video.”

And this: “Thompson’s immediate baton strikes to the retreating, non-assaultive Zehm did not serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose … and no reasonable officer would have perceived Zehm’s response to Officer Thompson’s presence as assaultive.”

Well … duh. All it took was an inside investigation, an outside investigation, a lawsuit, public pressure to hire a police ombudsman, an FBI investigation, five years, 20 weeks and one day to drag the truth out into the light.

Nicks is second in command of the Spokane Police Department. First is Anne Kirkpatrick. She likes to talk about the importance of telling the truth. Her supposedly cardinal rule: “If you lie, you die.”

What happened to Otto Zehm in the Zip Trip was appalling. The failures of honesty, accountability and good faith that followed are despicable.

Nicks’ long, strange trip to the truth only makes that more obvious.

Judge releases cellblock video of alleged mistreatment by Ottawa police

July 28, 2011
Steve Rennie, Canadian Press (via Globe and Mail)

A cellblock video has been released that captures the arrest of a woman who claims Ottawa police injured and strip-searched her before leaving her naked in a cell without medical attention.

Roxanne Carr was arrested and charged with assaulting police, obstructing police and damaging property in 2008. Those charges were dropped in April.

She is now suing the police department over their treatment of her during her arrest.

Several media outlets, including The Canadian Press, went to court to have the video released. Last week, an Ontario Court judge agreed to release the footage, but court workers couldn't find the video in the case file. A duplicate copy was released Thursday.

The incident is broken up into 26 video clips showing Ms. Carr's arrest from several different angles.

In the videos, officers drag a handcuffed Ms. Carr, who is wearing a black tank top and dark pants, from a police car through the hallways of the cellblock.

Ms. Carr's arms are cuffed behind her back. She does not appear to resist.

Two officers hold her by the elbows and lead her into a room with a counter. They lower her head-first onto the floor. Her head comes off the floor and falls back onto it as they shift her body.

She is lying face down when the officers remove her handcuffs. Then, they take two objects from her hair or neck and toss them onto a nearby counter. One officer kneels on Ms. Carr's back as the police wrap a strap around her arms. They then hoist her to her feet and walk her to a cell.

The videos do not have any sound.

There is no camera inside Ms. Carr's cell. At one point, a white gown is tossed from one of the cells. Later, an officer leads Ms. Carr, who is now wearing a white gown, from her cell to retrieve her clothes from a bin. She gets changed in another room.

The video shows Ms. Carr, again in the black shirt and pants, standing at a counter signing documents. She leaves the cellblock, stops in a stairwell to put her hair in a ponytail, and leaves the station.

It is not clear from the videos if she is in any pain.

She claims her arm was broken during the arrest and that she was dropped on her head.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

“It's clear from the video that there's not an instance, not a muscle of resistance. And despite that, there's six police officers hog-tying her and then leading her on a leash to the cell, taking her clothes and leaving her naked for at least an hour,” said Lawrence Greenspon, Carr's lawyer.

“It's a very disturbing video. I shudder to think if people treat people like this when they know they're on video, how do they treat people when they know they're not?”

In a statement released this week, Ottawa Police Acting Chief Gilles Larochelle noted the Ontario Special Investigations Unit and the Ottawa Police Service's Professional Standards Unit both probed the incident and did not lay charges or find any misconduct.

“I am satisfied that cellblock officers handled the custody of Roxanne Carr with the utmost professionalism, especially when faced with a crisis in the cell,” Mr. Larochelle's statement says.

The Carr case has similarities to another case in which an Ottawa police officer was charged with sexual assault after a woman's much-publicized arrest.

The Special Investigations Unit was called in after video showed a special constable kneeing Stacy Bonds while she was being booked at police headquarters Sept. 6, 2008.

The video also showed male officers holding Ms. Bonds down while another officer cut off her clothes the night she was arrested for a liquor offence.

Ms. Bonds was subsequently charged with assaulting a police officer, but Ontario Court Justice Richard Lajoie stayed proceedings in her case after seeing the video.

Other elements of the Ms. Bonds video, along with several other videos showing different cases of alleged police brutality, are still under investigation by various agencies.

15 Years in Prison For Taping the Cops? How Eavesdropping Laws Are Taking Away Our Best Defense Against Police Brutality

July 27, 2011
By Rania Khalek, Alternet

Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.

Over Memorial Day weekend this past May, residents of Miami Beach witnessed a horrific display of police brutality as 12 cops sprayed Raymond Herisse's car with 100 bullets, killing him. The shooting provoked outrage in the surrounding community, not only because of the murder, but because of what the police did afterward.

Officers on the scene confiscated and smashed witnesses' cell phones; later, when they were confronted by the media, the police denied trying to destroy videos of the incident.

But 35-year-old Narces Benoit removed his HTC EVO’s SIM card and hid it in his mouth. He later sold the video to CNN, placing the police in the awkward position of explaining why they lied about allegations of cell phone destruction. More importantly, the video showed at least two officers pointing guns at Benoit, demanding that he stop filming.

Police brutality takes many forms around the country on a regular basis, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods. Sometimes, the only method of accountability is a victim’s word (if they are still alive) against that of an officer. Unsurprisingly, the police officer’s version of the story is often adequate for a judge to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing, unless there is hard evidence of misconduct, such as a video or audio recording, which can be useful to unravel conflicting versions of police-citizen encounters.

Due to advancements in technology, the average citizen carries a digital camera in his or her pocket or purse, creating a potential army of amateur videographers on every street corner. A quick YouTube search of "police brutality" lists endless videos, often cell phone footage, of what appear to be police acting with unnecessary and violent force. Some of those videos have served a crucial role in bringing charges against brutality that may have gone unaddressed had it not been for bystanders recording.

One would think the fear of videographers on every block would be a powerful deterrent to police misconduct. However, legislatures are not taking this newfound power against police abuse lightly. In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.

Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a "privacy provision" that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings — where it is obvious to all that recording is underway — from accidentally committing a felony.

Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state's wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.

Cases Keep Piling Up

Recording on-duty police officers has gained momentum in states around the country for some time now. But it's only in the last few years, after several high-profile incidents, that the topic has begun to generate nationwide headlines and debate.

Two of these incidents occurred in Maryland last year, just weeks apart.

One involved Jack McKenna, who was arrested by Prince George's county police last March and charged with assault and resisting arrest when he was out celebrating the University of Maryland basketball victory over Duke. Fortunately for him, his fellow Terps fans happened to record the encounter on their cell phones, showing riot police throwing McKenna against a wall and beating him with batons. Once the videos appeared on the Internet, Prince George's County suspended the officers and dropped the charges against McKenna.

The second incident took place last April, when Maryland State Trooper David Uhler pulled over Anthony Graber for speeding and reckless driving. Graber had swerved across several lanes and did at least one wheelie on his motorcycle while driving 80mph. Graber had a video camera mounted to his motorcycle helmet that was recording at the time of the stop, and captured footage of Uhler, dressed in plainclothes while yelling with his gun in hand.

Although Graber was only given a traffic ticket, he posted the video on YouTube to publicize Uhler's threatening behavior. Maryland State police responded by raiding Graber's home, confiscating his computer and charging him with two felonies. One was for violating Maryland's wiretapping law by recording a trooper without his consent, and the other was for "possession of an intercept device," a provision intended for bugs and wiretaps but in this case referred to Graber's video camera. As a result, Graber faced up to 16 years in prison for recording a police officer during a public traffic stop.

Graber's case was ultimately dismissed, as are almost all of these cases, on the grounds that on-duty cops have no such expectation of privacy, which is in accordance with every court in the country that has considered the issue. Because there is no legal justification, the charges are usually dropped or never filed at all. But that doesn't stop the arrests. Radley Balko points out that, more often than not, police arrest photographers for obstructing law enforcement even in states that have no wiretapping law:


“In addition to arresting citizens with cameras for wiretapping, police can use vaguer catch-all charges, such as interfering with a police officer, refusing to obey a lawful order, or obstructing an arrest or police action. Such arrests are far more common. Even more frequent are incidents where police don’t make arrests but illegally confiscate cameras, delete photos and videos, or incorrectly warn camera-wielding citizens that they aren’t allowed to film.”

One such encounter took place earlier this year, when a California man, who recorded a police officer arresting someone at gunpoint down the street, found himself handcuffed as well. Lonell Duchine was videotaping the arrest on his cell phone from inside his garage, when an officer pulled up to his home and demanded the phone for evidence. Duchine refused, so the police officer arrested him, citing “police interference” for withholding evidence.

While illegal confiscation happens in a range of scenarios, from traffic stops to people's homes, the most famous example was on New Year’s day 2009, when Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Officer Johannes Mehserle shot 21-year-old Oscar Grant at point-blank range, as he lay face down in an Oakland subway station, allegedly resisting arrest. The incident captured the nation's attention not simply because an unarmed black man was publicly killed by a white police officer, but also because dozens of onlookers captured it on their cell phones for the world to see.


In California, police are not permitted to confiscate a phone unless the phone was used in a crime. Nonetheless, after the incident BART police attempted to confiscate the phones of subway riders, and even chased one camera-wielder onto a subway car. Had a bystander not been equipped with his cell phone, charges may not have been brought against Mehserle, demonstrating the crucial role video recording can play in accountability. Since then there have been multiple incidents of police brutality recorded by cell phones, which may have otherwise gone unaddressed.

The most pernicious prosecutions to date have taken place in Illinois, where the sentence for recording a police officer is considered a class 1 felony — on par with a rape charge — and can land a person behind bars for more than a decade.

Tiawonda Moore from Chicago, Illinois, faces up to 15 years in prison for using her Blackberry to record two Internal Affairs investigators who spoke to her inside police headquarters. She was there last August to file a sexual harassment complaint against another officer, who she alleges had fondled her and left his personal telephone number when he was at her home investigating a domestic dispute. She says the police department actively discouraged her from filing a report, so out of frustration, she began to record the conversations on her phone. Although the case initially received national media coverage, attention has since died down as 21-year-old Moore awaits a trial date that continues to be pushed back.

Michael Allison is another Illinois resident facing the wrath of the eavesdropping law. The 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport faces four counts of violating the eavesdropping law, which adds up to a possible 75-year sentence. Allison believed the local police were harassing him in retaliation for a lawsuit he'd filed against the city over a local zoning ordinance, so he began to record his conversations with them.

Allison was eventually charged with violating the zoning ordinance. When he was told there would be no record of his trial, he informed court officials that he would record his trial with a digital recorder. This prompted the judge to have him arrested on the day of his trial, for violating her right to privacy. After confiscating Allison's digital recorder, the police found the recordings between Allison and the cops.

Christopher Drew, a 60-year-old artist and teacher, is also being prosecuted for violating the eavesdropping law. Drew was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. He recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.

These are just a handful of cases that illustrate the danger that comes with recording police in public. Carlos Miller, a journalist who has been arrested twice for photographing the police, has documented hundreds of similar cases on his blog, Photography is Not a Crime.

What Do the Police Think?

In the most comprehensive article to date about recording the police —" The War on Cameras" — Radley Balko interviewed James Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which describes itself as "the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers." Pasco argues that videotaping police officers in public should be illegal because it can intimidate officers from doing their jobs. Mark Donahue, president of FOP, concurs, telling the New York Times that his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act and was relieved that the ACLU's challenge filed last year failed, adding that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”


Police officers are not a monolith, so while there are many, like Pasco and Donahue, who support these laws, there are also many who doubtless oppose them. At the same time, police apprehension about being videotaped on the job is understandable, especially with the advancement in cell-phone technology increasing at record speed. Some also worry that their actions will be preserved and used against them in ways that weren't possible just a few years ago, while others are simply uncomfortable being videotaped.

However, when considering recent developments in police surveillance, Pasco's argument is rather baffling. In stark contrast to the laws banning citizens from monitoring police misconduct with recording devices, police officers are equipped with top-of-line surveillance cameras in their cars and on their uniforms. According to a recent AP report, hundreds of police departments across the country are equipping officers with tiny body cameras to record anything from a traffic stop to a hot vehicle pursuit to an unfolding violent crime. The mini cameras have even spawned a new cable reality TV series, "Police POV," which uses police video from Cincinnati, Chattanooga and Fort Smith, Ark.

The cameras are intended to provide more transparency and security to officers on the street and to reduce the number of misconduct complaints and potential lawsuits. Which begs the question: what is the difference between these cameras and the footage captured by citizens in public? Why is it acceptable for police officers to record, but not citizens? Aren't the uniform and dashboard cameras, which unlike citizen recordings document police actions all through the day, intimidating police from doing their jobs, just as Pasco suggested?

Unconstitutional

Pasco goes on to suggest that we have to "put faith and trust in our authority figures," which is the absolute antithesis of a functioning democracy and the US constitution, which rests on transparency and accountability.

As usual, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken the lead in challenging these laws. In August of last year, the ACLU of Illinois filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act (ACLU v. Anita Alvarez), arguing that the act violates the First Amendment and has been used to thwart people who simply want to monitor police activity, including the ACLU itself. The Illinois law is unique in that it makes it a crime to record not only private but also public conversations made without consent of all parties. In the lawsuit, the ACLU pointed to six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges after being accused of violating the state’s eavesdropping law for recording police making arrests in public venues.

Although the lawsuit was dismissed in January, the ACLU has appealed the suit and expects to begin making oral arguments sometime in the fall. Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney with the Illinois Chapter of the ACLU, explained why the eavesdropping law is unconstitutional:

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information for the purpose of sharing it with other people and for the purpose of using it to petition government for redress of grievances. And so for a long time courts have protected the right to record by various means what government officials are doing in public, so the press can publish that and so that citizens can use it to petition government.

"When we talk about police officers doing their jobs in public, we’re talking about very important government activity which is often used properly but sometimes is abused, and it’s very important that citizens have the ability to document what police are doing so they can seek improvement in police policy and the like… therefore, the first amendment protects the right to make audio-recordings of on duty police officers who are doing their jobs in public places."

Schwartz went on to compare audio-recording to other forms of documentation that, although less efficient, are not illegal:

"We believe that a police officer who is doing their job in a public place does not have an expectation of privacy. Even the police can see that if they’re arresting somebody on a corner, other people can watch….they don’t dispute that someone can stand a small distance away and watch, or that the person who’s watching can take out a pen and take notes or on what they’re seeing, or that they can take photographs of what they’re seeing or that they can make a silent video recording of what they’re seeing. The addition of the audio is a very powerful way for citizens to ensure that police officers are turning square corners."

Schwartz also emphasized that resolving disputing testimonies with citizen recording, while important, is not the only benefit to overturning the eavesdropping law:

"If police officers are doing their jobs in public places, for example policing a demonstration and something goes awry, it is very valuable for there to be a strong record, including audio of what happened, so that if there is a need to change the rules, the public can go to the government and say "look what happened, change the rules about how police officers are enforcing the peace at a political demonstration."

The court's decision in this case is said to be critically important in setting a precedent that will either protect or endanger newsgatherers‘ constitutional rights to monitor and record police misconduct. Schwartz said the ACLU is "cautiously optimistic" about the eventual ruling, which is expected to be handed down sometime in 2012.

Caught on tape: Police beat and taser 'gentle' mentally-ill homeless man to death

July 5, 2011: Kelly Thomas, 37, Fullerton, California

... Eye witnesses at the scene claim the six officers tasered him five times and beat him beyond recognition, which the disturbing photo of him in hospital shows.

Mark Turgeon, who was there, said: 'They kept beating him and tasering him. I could hear zapping, and he wasn't even moving.

'He had one arm in front of him like this, he wasn't resisting. And they kept telling him, "He's resisting, quit resisting", and he wasn't resisting.'

The disgrace of Ottawa’s Third World police force

July 22, 2011
Chris Selley, National Post

On Tuesday, a judge ordered the release of police video that, according to Roxanne Carr, shows her being roughed up and left naked in a cell by Ottawa police officers. The ruling came over strong protests from both police and the Crown, and with the support of both Ms. Carr and local media outlets, who argued, correctly, that the public needs to see what happened in the lockup — not least because the charges against Ms. Carr have inexplicably been dropped (likely because of what’s on the tape, the judge concluded). It’s especially important to see the video because the local police have gained a reputation for doing to people exactly the sort of thing Ms. Carr alleges was done to her. Indeed, one of the officers she accuses has been charged with sexually assaulting another woman while she was in police custody in 2008.

Unfortunately, in what an Ottawa Citizen editorial called a “weird twist,” the DVD in question has gone missing from the court file. Shucks, don’t you just hate it when that happens? There are other copies, of course, but it’s not like the Crown or the police would just release theirs without a fight. Sure, we pay all their salaries, and for the cellblock and the camera. And Ms. Carr wants the tape released. And there’s no conceivable reason for either party not to release the tape except that it would embarrass or implicate themselves.
But who knows how trustworthy those copies might be? In court, police lawyers argued the missing DVD raised questions as to the video’s “integrity.” Well, sure. A nefarious defence attorney might have somehow gained access to the copies and CGI-ed in a police officer dropping a grand piano on Ms. Carr’s head, for example, or chasing her around the cellblock with a flamethrower. You can do amazing things with a laptop these days.

To be fair, this isn’t necessarily a sad-sack coverup. The video might have been innocently mislaid. Maybe they’ll find it behind a radiator somewhere, its “integrity” hopefully intact. But if you read about, say, the Russian or Indonesian justice system misplacing a video that could implicate a favoured member of society in the mistreatment of a less favoured member, and then the prosecution and the police refused to provide their copies, would you assume everything was on the level? I’d think not.

In the aftermath of the G20, we all know the extraordinary lengths to which police forces and officers will go to spare their fellows even the lenient punishments they usually face for doing wrong. And the recent scandal over police helping Crown prosecutors vet jury members confirms the two are very interested in preserving each other’s reputations. Knowing what we know about the Ottawa police and its recent record, this thing smells to high heaven.

But assume whatever chain of events you want. What’s missing from this story is a sense of panic, of utter mortification. Everyone involved in the chain of custody, and everyone involved in the case (other than the defence and Ms. Carr) should be frantic with worry. None should sleep until an answer is discovered. The judge should be apoplectic. Jobs should be on the line. Canada’s justice system isn’t the same as Russia’s or Indonesia’s. That’s why it’s so awful when it looks the same.

The nonchalance is baffling. As much as people still call police, and rightfully trust them, in a crisis, there is a growing sense among law-and-order types that police really aren’t on their side — that they’re just another self-interested public-sector union, albeit more heavily armed. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who’s as cartoonish a cop-lover as you’ll find, has discovered that cutting police complements, salaries and perquisites might be a pretty easy sell.

If we aren’t in a full-blown crisis of confidence in Canadian policing and justice, we’re heading towards one, and nobody seems intent on stopping it. Police forces should count on politicians not even trying to stop it until it’s far too late, then concluding it’s not worth it and throwing the cops under the bus. Releasing the cellblock video might help the Ottawa police claw back a bit of respect.

National Post
cselley@nationalpost.com

Toronto Cop who threatened Tasing gets conditional discharge

June 27, 2011
CTV News

A Toronto police officer who admitted he threatened to Taser a man's genitals was given a conditional discharge on Monday.

Const. Christopher Hominuk was sentenced to nine months of probation, 50 hours of community service and a $500 fine after being caught on video threatening two people in custody in May, 2010.

He is also required to have no contact with the victims.

On Monday, a judge ruled Hominuk's actions were caused by a medical issue.

The constable, a Type 1 diabetic, pleaded guilty to one count of threatening bodily harm but claimed he was suffering from low blood sugar at the time of the incident.

Video released during Hominuk's trial shows the officer using his Taser to try to exact information from two men in custody.

The video was captured on May 24, 2010, while police were investigating a theft call in Etobicoke. It shows Hominuk holding a Taser to a man's neck while the man lies in handcuffs across the back seat of a police cruiser.

In the same video, the officer can be seen threatening a second man's genitals with the Taser, saying he will be shocked if he fails to co-operate.

In February, a spokesperson for Chief Bill Blair described the officer's behaviour as "disgraceful."

The officer did not discharge his Taser on either prisoner.

With files from CTV Toronto's John Musselman

Crown alleges diabetic cop covered up Taser threats

June 16, 2011
Betsy Powell, Toronto Star

A prosecutor has suggested a Toronto police officer tried to conceal the fact he threatened to Taser two burglary suspects and only came clean after his arrest.

Christopher Hominuk, 38, a type 1 diabetic, blames his low blood sugar level for his aberrant, violent behaviour during the May 24, 2010 incident.

He has testified at this week’s sentencing hearing that he pleaded guilty to one count of threaten bodily harm because he immediately wanted to take responsibility.

But Crown attorney Philip Perlmutter noted Wednesday the incidents only came to light weeks later after a superior officer “stumbled” across the incidents while reviewing in-car video recordings for an unrelated purpose.

“You were quite prepared to let this pass if you could,” in order to protect your job, Perlmutter said during cross examination in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The prosecutor also suggested Hominuk wrote “low blood sugar” in his notebook just in case things “blew up,” making no mention of the Taser threats which he knew the in-car cameras had recorded.

The guilty plea came only as a result of knowing about the damaging video footage, Perlmutter stated. “You had no choice.” Hominuk shook his head and said he had been scared.

Perlmutter also played segments of other video footage showing Hominuk outside his cruiser before and after making the threats where he appears “perfectly normal and fine.”

Hominuk responded that may be how he looked but he insisted he was in a confused state.

He did, however, agree that he didn’t take adequate precautions to guard against a hypoglycemic episode.

On that day, Hominuk started his 3 p.m. shift after only eating a bowl of cereal and was, in fact, not wearing a blood sugar monitoring device as was previously suggested because it caused him discomfort and malfunctioned.

“It was pretty irresponsible not to eat,” Perlmutter said.

“To a degree, yes,” replied the tall, grey-haired man who was diagnosed with the disease at 15. He added later that after following a strict regime for two decades, you can “back off a bit. You get complacent after 20 years.”

But he disagreed with Perlmutter’s suggestion that he has, over the years, put himself and the public at risk by failing to notify Toronto Police medical services about incidents where he has lost consciousness due to low blood sugar levels.

The maximum sentence Hominuk could face is 18 months in jail. The Crown is asking for a jail sentence. Defence lawyer Peter Brauti is seeking a non-custodial sentence.

Regardless of the sentence, Hominuk will still face a disciplinary tribunal that will determine whether he keeps his job.

Outside court, Brauti said he was shocked to learn from the Toronto Police Service an officer can remain on the job after a period of incarceration — something he said was unprecedented in Ontario.

A TPS spokesman told the Toronto Star that “each case is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”

Final arguments are expected Thursday.

Cop’s excuse shocking — DAVE DALE’s Soapboxing

June 14, 2011
By DAVE DALE, The North Bay Nugget

There's a funny quote in one of the Toronto Sun articles Tuesday.

A tearful Toronto cop apologized in court for threatening two suspects with an electronic shock to the testicles if they didn't give up the name of their break-in accomplice.

That's not the humorous part, although it depends if you're a sick puppy who gets off when someone is tortured. George W. Bush might giggle if given the opportunity to Taser a Democrat.

Part of Const. Christopher Hominuk's defence was the fact he was diabetic and may have experienced a hypoglycemic incident.

An expert medical witness said his actions were compatible with such events which can dramatically alter a diabetic's behaviour temporarily from gentle to aggressive.

If you don't eat properly, diabetics develop low blood sugar levels and certainly can alter moods as the body tries to function on a bad mix of fuel coursing through their veins.

He also slapped one suspect across the face.

It's a bit of stretch, however, to excuse specific, repeated violent behaviour just because you may have skipped lunch.

Not a bad attempt to sway a judge's view of a cop taking matters into his own hands, but too silly to be taken seriously.

Still, that's not what made me laugh out loud.

The probationary sergeant, who was demoted after the Taser threats came to light, told the court he wanted to cry when he realized what he had done — all of it caught on video as the handcuffed suspects were detained in the back of two cruisers.

"I knew what I had done was wrong," Hominuk said, leading to the knee-slapper of a quote.

Drum roll please . . .

"You'll always get more information from people by being nice than threatening them."

It's true, actually. People are often more eager to share information if you don't appear as a threat. Defence mechanisms go up and it takes a long time for them to go down when someone holds an energy conducting device to your crotch.

The court heard that neither suspect co-operated despite Hominuk's extreme investigative strategy. It doesn't say, however, if they sang like canaries when the "good" cop arrived on the scene with lollipops.

Seriously, it's a major stain on an otherwise exemplary 14-year career and it's a shame one bad moment will likely ruin his changes of moving up the ranks.

But it's good to see an incident like this being aired in public. Canada needs good cops, we have some of the best in the world. Prosecuting the bad apples is important to build public trust.

Don't get me wrong. Crap like this used to go on all the time. Every town had its bruisers in cruisers. I just didn't realize it was because they were eating too many doughnuts and not enough veggies.

Tearful Toronto cop sorry for Taser threat

June 14, 2011
By SAM PAZZANO, QMI Agency (Toronto Sun)

TORONTO - A city cop who threatened to Taser two burglary suspects in the testicles to force them to surrender a cohort wept on the witness stand Tuesday as he apologized to his victims.

Const. Christopher Hominuk burst into tears at his sentencing hearing before Justice Hugh Fraser on Tuesday, while reading letters of apology.

He said his judgment and behaviour was affected by a hypoglycemic incident, which is characterized by dangerously low blood sugar levels.

An expert medical witness testified Tuesday Hominuk's actions were "compatible with hypoglycemic" events that can dramatically -- but temporarily -- alter a diabetic's behaviour from gentle to aggressive.

Hominuk said he felt "horrible and ashamed" after he vowed to use his Taser against the handcuffed suspects.

Hominuk, who was diagnosed at age 15 as a Type 1 diabetic, said he wanted to cry when he realized what he had done.

"I knew what I had done was wrong. You'll always get more information from people by being nice than threatening them," said Hominuk.

After being charged, he was stripped of his probationary sergeant status despite outstanding performance reviews for 11 months.

His 14-year career was exemplary and Hominuk was universally respected by both peers and commanding officers, court heard.

Hominuk's actions were captured on in-cruiser cameras, which showed him slapping Robert James Bolgan, 47, in the face and forcing him to lay down in the backseat.

Hominuk, 38, pleaded guilty in January to one count of threatening bodily harm in a May 24, 2010, incident involving two suspects, who were both sitting alone in separate cruisers.

As soon as Hominuk opened the cruiser door, he shoved his Taser into Bolgan's genital area.

Hominuk demanded to know the name of a missing suspect. Bolgan answered that he didn't know.

"If you are lying to me, when I get back to the station, I'm Tasering you in the f---ing nuts," Hominuk barked at Bolgan.

Bolgan had redness to the side of his face where he was struck, court heard.

Hominuk confronted his second victim, Roger William Bradshaw, 39, who was lying in a nearby cruiser's backseat.

Hominuk pressed his Taser into Bradshaw's neck and repeated his demand for the identity of the fugitive. When Bradshaw emphasized he didn't know him, Hominuk snapped: "If I find out you're lying, I'm going to f---ing Taser you in the nuts."

Bradshaw was unharmed. The Taser was never activated or used on either man.

Hominuk and other officers were investigating a break-in of some tractor-trailers when police arrested the two men and another suspect.

Victoria Police Proof of Concept Study - Body Worn Video and In Vehicle Video

February 2010
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Staff Sergeant Darren Laur (see also Darren Laur)
Constable Brendon LeBlanc
Constable Trevor Stephen
Constable Peter Lane
Debra Taylor

Mounties using their heads to video crime, deal with suspects

May 16, 2011
By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The RCMP like to say they always get their man, and soon they might have video of him, too.

The national police force is studying the use of head-mounted video cameras to record confrontations with suspects.

The move follows RCMP field trials in Kelowna, B.C., and Moncton, N.B., last year in which the force tested — and later rejected — other video devices.

Included in the trials were the Taser Cam, an accessory for newer-model stun guns made by Taser International, supplier to the RCMP, and the Vidmic, an audio-video recorder that attaches to an officer's belt radio.

During the pilot, 132 Vidmic video clips were recorded and the Taser Cam was used twice, say RCMP documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. In addition, several still photos were taken with the Vidmic.

The RCMP records show the devices didn't quite meet the force's needs.

Members "expressed concerns" with the Taser Cam because it began recording only when the stun gun's safety switch was set to the armed position, says an August 2010 report on the field trials.

It meant that, in one Kelowna episode, "a significant amount of communication and negotiation" with a man who tried to harm himself and threatened police was not captured on video, notes the report.

In that case, the Taser was not fired.

"Had the situation ended differently, with the subject not complying, the efforts made by the members to de-escalate the situation would not have been recorded," the report says.

Because the Vidmic was mounted on the member's vest or jacket, it was not always pointed in the direction the member was looking, says the report.

Officers also had technical concerns with the Vidmic, including the fact it beeped every few seconds when the battery was low.

"It was noted this could have officer safety implications if the members were conducting a silent approach on foot to an incident."

As a result, late in the trial, the force began looking at a head-worn camera that slips over the ear and connects to a portable mini-computer on the belt.

Ten Axon devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International, were tested only in off-duty settings, such as training, because the video recordings were downloaded directly to a site in the United States, posing potential privacy concerns.

"The members immediately reported that the Axon camera resolved the issues and limitations they had noted with the Vidmic," say the RCMP notes.

Though officers found the mini-computer "quite bulky," the Axon "warranted a more in-depth review."

Based on feedback from officers, the RCMP began new research last month focusing on the head-mounted cameras, said Sgt. Pat Flood, an RCMP spokeswoman.

No field trial is yet underway, she said. But the internal RCMP memos say funding has been set aside in anticipation of the next trial, which might include other police forces.

"If a further pilot is approved, the recordings will be housed in Canada," say the notes. "There is also opportunity to bring other law enforcement agencies in on the expanded pilot project as the server can house their data separately."

At least two other Canadian police forces have tested body-worn video devices. A report on the Victoria police department's 2009 trial found the technology provided "the best evidence possible" and that the video could be used in court. It also said officers' awareness of their surroundings increased, while public hostility and aggressiveness decreased.

Police tout video as a means of documenting their side of the story when conflicting accounts of an altercation arise. However, civil libertarians have warned that police use of video raises important questions about the citizens' rights.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has argued that it's no coincidence a number of videos police misconduct have come from the public, not police.

A vivid example is the case of Robert Dziekanski — who died in 2007 after being hit with an RCMP Taser at the Vancouver airport — an episode recorded by a fellow traveller carrying a video camera.

The RCMP report recommends that future study of video look at data storage and retention, cost, training and recertification, and privacy-related concerns.

Centre for Police Accountability (C4PA)

A new police accountability organization in Ontario - check it out at http://www.c4pa.ca

The site says: If you are a victim of police brutality or misconduct, you are not alone. Many people have a shared experience of being abused by the police. Unfortunately, people feel powerless when it comes to getting justice against the police. The C4PA is working to change this.

PLEASE NOTE: This site does not give legal advice. We make legal referrals. The C4PA is building a network of lawyers and legal workers to assist survivors of police misconduct and help get justice. Please contact us if you are interested in this initiative.

...

Counter Surveillance Video Project
Video recording and photographing the police is a great way to make them more accountable.Post your video and pics to our site and expose police misconduct when it happens. Share videos and photographs through our Counter Surveillance Video Project and learn about other peoples experiences with police.

Toronto police officer pleads guilty to threatening man in custody

February 7, 2011
CTV News

A Toronto police officer has pleaded guilty to one count of threatening bodily harm after being caught on video intimidating two people in custody with a Taser.

Video released Monday during Const. Christopher Hominuk's trial shows the officer using his Taser to try to exact information from the men.

The video was captured on May 24 while police were investigating a theft call in Etobicoke. It shows an officer holding a Taser to a man's neck while the man lies in handcuffs across the back seat of a police cruiser. In the same video, the officer can be seen threatening a second man's genitals with the Taser, saying he will be shocked if he fails to co-operate.

On Monday, a spokesperson for Chief Bill Blair described the officer's behaviour as "disgraceful."

The officer did not discharge his Taser on either prisoner, the court heard.

Hominuk, who is 37 years old and has 13 years of police service behind him, was charged and suspended from duty with pay in June 2010. He was most recently posted with 22 Division in the city's west end.

He is set to be sentenced at the College Park courthouse on June 14, 2011.

With a report from CTV Toronto's John Musselman

Cop threatened to Taser prisoners

February 2, 2011
Sam Pazzano, Toronto Sun

A Toronto Police officer admitted he threatened to Taser two prisoners in the testicles to force the duo to help him catch a suspect.

Const. Christopher Hominuk, 37, pleaded guilty to one count of threatening bodily harm in a May 24, 2010 incident involving two suspects.

Both victims were handcuffed and sitting alone in different police cruisers.

Hominuk’s actions were captured on the in-cruiser video cameras, which revealed him slapping Robert James Bolgan, 47, in the face and forcing him to lay down on the back seat.

The video was played in open court before Justice Hugh Fraser Monday.

As soon as Hominuk opened the cruiser door, he pushed his Taser into Bolgan’s genital area.

Crown attorney Philip Perlmutter said Hominuk demanded to know from Bolgan the identity of a missing suspect. Bolgan replied he didn’t know.

“I’ll f---ing Taser. If you are lying to me, when I get back to the station, I’m Tasering you in the f---ing nuts,” Hominuk barked at Bolgan.

Bolgan had redness to the side of his forehead where he was struck.

Hominuk then confronted his second victim, Roger William Bradshaw, 39, who was lying in a nearby cruiser’s back seat.

Hominuk pressed his Taser into Bradshaw’s neck and repeated his demand for the identity of the fugitive. When Bradshaw insisted he didn’t know him, Hominuk snarled: “If I find out you’re lying, I’m going to f---ing Taser you in the nuts.”

Bradshaw was unharmed. The Taser was never activated or used on either man.

A sentencing hearing for Hominuk, 37, is scheduled for June 14 at College Park.

Hominuk and other officers were investigating a break-in at some tractor trailers in Etobicoke when police arrested the two men and another individual at 36 Taymall Rd.

Court heard that neither victim was intimidated or physically injured. Neither complained about the threats or treatment. Hominuk’s Taser was never activated or used in the incident.

Hominuk’s misconduct was discovered while police viewed the in-camera video for an unrelated purpose.

Hominuk, a 14-year officer with an exemplary record and was a probationary sergeant at the time. He’s married and has two children, said his lawyer Peter Brauti.

Brauti told court “there will be medical evidence that will be an extenuating circumstance” at the sentencing hearing.

Hominuk lost his probationary rank and could lose his job if he’s sentenced to a custodial or conditional sentence, said Brauti.

Hominuk was suspended with pay since being charged in June last year.

Second Spratt Taser video is chilling: MP

The release of a "chilling" second video of the tasering of Kevin Spratt will trash Western Australia's reputation for treatment of Aboriginal prisoners, a state MP has declared.

The state's corruption watchdog is inquiring into whether any members of Western Australia Police or the Department of Corrective Services engaged in misconduct during Mr Spratt's repeated tasering while in custody.

The tasering of Mr Spratt at Perth Watch House on August 31, 2008 first came to light with the release of a report by the Corruption and Crime Commission into the use of Taser stun guns in WA.

CCTV footage showed the unarmed and subdued man being tasered 14 times while nine officers surrounded him.

Corruption and Crime Commission commissioner Len Roberts-Smith said the inquiry was triggered by the widespread media exposure, serious public concerns and revelations Mr Spratt had been repeatedly tasered again a week later by corrective services personnel.

The footage of that incident, which occurred on September 6, 2008, was shown for the first time on Thursday after the government had previously refused to make it public.

Seven heavily protected prison officers wearing helmets and carrying batons are shown entering Mr Spratt's prison cell and yelling at Mr Spratt to turn around and lie down.

"If you don't lay down, I'm going to taser you. Turn around and lay down. That's it, I'm not going to ask you again. If I have to ask you again I'm going to taser you," one officers shouts.

After an unarmed Mr Spratt apparently refuses, a prison officer tasers Mr Spratt twice and he is then pinned face down on the floor.

The officers then demand Mr Spratt extend his arms straight out while an officer drives a Taser into the small of his bare back and uses it nine times.

During the ordeal Mr Spratt can be heard talking in native tongue and praying to God.

As the footage was played, Mr Spratt's fiancee, Tayunna Schatkowski, was unable to watch and broke down in tears.

In his opening address, counsel assisting, Peter Quinlan, said on the day after the tasering by the prison officers, Mr Spratt was treated at Royal Perth Hospital.

"Mr Spratt was diagnosed as suffering from at least one, and possibly other fractures of the ribs, a collapse of his lung, his right shoulder was dislocated with a comminuted fracture of the humerus," he said.

"In addition Mr Spratt had multiple superficial cuts and abrasions including several puncture wounds consistent with the use of a Taser in probe mode."

Shadow attorney-general John Quigley said the conduct was disgraceful and would damage WA's reputation.

"The violence was absolutely chilling. Tonight WA's reputation in the way we treat Aboriginal prisoners will be trashed internationally," he told reporters outside the hearing.

"This video depicts disgraceful violence against an Aboriginal prisoner in police custody."

CCTV footage released previously of the first incident in which Mr Spratt was tasered showed him refusing a strip search by sitting on a bench and locking his arms onto the armrests.

"Senior Constable Troy Tomlin said 'Give us your hand or you're going to get f***** tasered, do you understand? Now!' and within seconds deployed a Taser in drive stun mode against Mr Spratt," Mr Quinlan said, describing the footage to the hearing.

"Without warning Senior Constable Tomlin again deployed a Taser in drive stun mode. Sgt Aaron Strahan and Constable Geoffrey Toogood each grabbed one of Mr Spratt's legs."

The hearing will continue on Monday.