Whren v. United States, U. The DoJ claims Ferguson police officers often detain suspects without reasonable suspicion to run checks for warrants — a significant source of revenue for the municipality. At times, the constitutional violations are even more blatant. An African-American man recounted to us an experience he had while sitting at a bus stop near Canfield Drive.
According to the man, an FPD patrol car abruptly pulled up in front of him. The officer inside, a patrol lieutenant, rolled down his window and addressed the man:. The lieutenant ran the man's name for warrants. Finding none, he returned the ID and said, "get the hell out of my face. That a lieutenant with supervisory responsibilities allegedly engaged in this conduct is further cause for concern.
A Ferguson police officer jailed several young African-American men for disorderly conduct after he claimed to have smelled marijuana, despite the fact that an investigation of the car did not produce marijuana or any other contraband. As with its pattern of unconstitutional stops, FPD routinely makes arrests without probable cause. Frequently, officers arrest people for conduct that plainly does not meet the elements of the cited offense.
For example, in November , an officer approached five African-American young people listening to music in a car. Claiming to have smelled marijuana, the officer placed them under arrest for disorderly conduct based on their "gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity.
Similarly, in February , an officer wrote an arrest notification ticket for Peace Disturbance for "loud music" coming from a car.
The arrest ticket appears unlawful as the officer did not assert, and there is no other indication, that a third party was disturbed by the music—an element of the offense. See Ferguson Mun. Nonetheless, a supervisor approved it. These warrantless arrests violated the Fourth Amendment because they were not based on probable cause. See Virginia v. Moore, U. A Ferguson police officer arrested a man for "refusing arrest. He claims to have lost his job as a direct result of the arrest.
For example, in the summer of , an officer detained a year-old African-American man who was sitting in his car cooling off after playing basketball.
The officer arguably had grounds to stop and question the man, since his windows appeared more deeply tinted than permitted under Ferguson's code. Without cause, the officer went on to accuse the man of being a pedophile, prohibit the man from using his cell phone, order the man out of his car for a pat-down despite having no reason to believe he was armed, and ask to search his car.
When the man refused, citing his constitutional rights, the officer reportedly pointed a gun at his head, and arrested him. The officer charged the man with eight different counts, including making a false declaration for initially providing the short form of his first name e. The officer also charged the man both with having an expired operator's license, and with having no operator's license in possession.
The man told us he lost his job as a contractor with the federal government as a result of the charges. In November , an officer deployed a canine to bite and detain a fleeing subject even though the officer knew the suspect was unarmed. The officer deemed the subject, an African-American male who was walking down the street, suspicious because he appeared to walk away when he saw the officer.
The officer stopped him and frisked him, finding no weapons. The officer then ran his name for warrants. When the man heard the dispatcher say over the police radio that he had outstanding warrants—the report does not specify whether the warrants were for failing to appear in municipal court or to pay owed fines, or something more serious—he ran.
The officer followed him and released his dog, which bit the man on both arms. The officer's supervisor found the force justified because the officer released the dog "fearing that the subject was armed," even though the officer had already determined the man was unarmed.
An officer received a day suspension after he was arrested for DUI and no punishment for instigating a bar fight. We found additional examples of FPD officers behaving in public in a manner that reflects poorly on FPD and law enforcement more generally.
In November , an officer was arrested for DUI by an Illinois police officer who found his car crashed in a ditch off the highway. Earlier that night he and his squad mates—including his sergeant—were thrown out of a bar for bullying a customer. The officer received a thirty-day suspension for the DUI.
The following was shared anonymously VIA the Submit page. If you have a story involving police misconduct, abuse, or corruption please share it with us. As there are so many stories of police abuse and corruption it is nearly impossible for us to cover them all.
Officer Storm observed a black color car driven by Gary Wenzel. Officer Storm made a u turn and a high speed chase was initiated. This chase went through three counties, Gasconade, Franklin, and back into Crawford County.
Never once did Crawford County dispatch notify any of these jurisdictions that there was a high speed pursuit in their area. Gary Wenzel died on the scene. Randy Martin hand-picked six men from the county to set on the jury.
One of those men, Ken Crowder, has been receiving money from the city of Bourbon since at least What is the difference between criminal and civil cases? Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are investigated and handled separately from civil cases, even if they concern the same incident. In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case against the accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case either through litigation or an administrative investigation against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency.
In a criminal case, the evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only satisfy the lower standard of a "preponderance of the evidence.
In civil cases, DOJ seeks to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and, where appropriate, may require individual relief for the victim s.
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another.
Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. What remedies are available under these laws? These are criminal statutes. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests.
In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct.
What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency's policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct.
There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision. Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ.
0コメント