WHY DOES IT SEEM LIKE POLICE MISCONDUCT IS INCREASING, AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Rook Elizabeth Ringer, Esquire • Apr 04, 2020
To begin, let me state right from the beginning that I do not hate cops. Given my experiences with corrupt cops, one would think I would have developed a pretty stereotypical anti-police attitude. Another stereotype of people who fight against police misconduct is that we are “pro-crime”, have no respect for the law, or something similar. That is also equally absurd. In fact, the reason that I am so passionate about going after police misconduct is because I believe in the law. I am one of the most law-abiding people you will ever meet. (I have a Doctorate in Law, a BS in Forensic Science, and am ex-Army Intelligence.)
In fact, because I have put on a uniform to defend this country in the Army, I have a certain reverence for those who serve in any capacity (law enforcement, fire department, emergency medical, etc.). And it is that reverence that makes me personally offended and disgusted by police misconduct, whether it is unlawful shootings, excessive force, evidence tampering, et cetera, I have personally witnessed these kinds of crimes being swept under the rug by judges, prosecutors, and police administrators.
To that I say: Not on my watch.
For example, one of the first trials I worked on, not all that long ago, involved a woman charged with two misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence. The defendant, a 50-something African-American woman and former Army sergeant, had come to the sheriff’s office to file a complaint about some teenagers harassing her at her apartment complex. The sheriff’s deputies (likely because she had little to identify the perpetrators) declined to file charges, and this upset the defendant. As she stormed out of the sheriff’s office, she said something to the effect of, “You’re all f#$%ing bull$#%!”
One deputy, operating under the misguided assumption that it was against the law to curse at a law enforcement officer or in front of a child (there was a mother and child in the lobby), decided to arrest the defendant. She did not want to be arrested for such a ridiculous and plainly unlawful charge(1), so the deputy swept her legs out from under her and body slammed her. She then spent the next few weeks in the county jail, as she did not have any money for bail or friends or family to bail her out.
Now, throughout the months of preparation for this 2-day trial (you heard it right: a 2-day trial for misdemeanors), the prosecutor’s office and sheriff’s offices both claimed that no security video of that date existed. And on day one of the trial, multiple deputies took the stand and said that (1) she was actually in the lobby screaming and yelling profanities, flailing her arms around, throwing things, and causing all kinds of mayhem for approximately 15-25 minutes before the deputies intervened, and (2) there was no video.
However, things changed when one desk clerk took the stand and, having apparently not gotten the memo to lie to back up her fellow deputies, told the judge she knew exactly where the video of the event was located. The court adjourned so that she could obtain the video. (You can watch the entire video here.) It shows that the defendant calmly walked through the lobby and was out of the sheriff’s office in approximately 7 seconds. Not 5, 15, or 25 minutes... In fact, approximately 2 minutes after walking out of the interview room, she was already body slammed and on the ground.
So the question that is on my mind regarding the trial is: Why did those law enforcement officers perjure themselves just to support a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge? Unfortunately, the “thin blue line” is often not about protecting the public, but about protecting fellow cops. Those cops who perjured themselves committed a felony...to uphold a misdemeanor conviction.
Think about it. Luckily, the jury was not impressed and found the defendant not guilty on all charges.
In any case, when law enforcement officer puts on that uniform and swears an oath to defend civilians, and uphold the law, we have to hold them to a higher
standard than that of your average criminal. We, the civilians of the United States, have entrusted that person with not only the duty to enforce the laws...but we have given them weapons, body armor, etc., in order to do that job. They have to be held to that higher standard, or society risks collapsing into some kind of dystopian nightmare. Here, cops lied, and someone spent weeks in jail for a “crime” that was not legally even a “crime”. But at least nobody died. That is not always the case.
For example, one night in May of 2010, officers of the Detroit Police Department’s Special Response Team (i.e., a local variant of a “SWAT team”), threw a “flash-bang” grenade into a home while serving a warrant trying to locate a murder suspect. The first problem, however, was that they were at the wrong house. And that is when things were about to get much, much worse.
First, the grenade landed near 7-year old Aiyana Jones, so her grandmother, Mertilla Jones, reached towards her to help her. At that point, a cop shot Aiyana with his MP-5 submachine gun, killing her. As is too often the case, the cop made up various stories about Mertilla grabbing for his gun and other nonsense (disproved by forensics, as her fingerprints were not on the gun), but the elephant in the room is that no civilian should ever be put into a position where, if they are awakened at night by police illegally throwing grenades into their house and busting in the door with submachine guns...they are “responsible” for their own deaths if they make a move that frightens the guy in the body armor carrying the ballistic shield.
These are just two examples of police misconduct, but they are symptomatic of a much larger, and far more pervasive problem. And frankly, it is not that the police misconduct is increasing, at least in my reasoned opinion, but rather...it is that we are starting to believe the victims. Over the last decade, people have begun video-recording police interactions, and those stories that were often disbelieved (by those of us who did not want to think of cops as being capable of criminal behavior) are now being seen in full 1080p HD video. And if you, like me, have spent a good deal of time watching those videos, then you have also seen what I have: a cop shooting an unarmed man in the back as he flees; cops shooting children holding toy guns; a father shot dead in front of his child for reaching to get the driver’s license that the cop had just told him to get... These are not easy things to watch, but we must watch them and learn from them. And frankly, every cop out there needs to watch them and in doing so remember that their oath to uphold the law includes
turning in and arresting the dirty, corrupt cops that commit those vile, reprehensible acts. It is not about “hating cops”. It is about having a moral consistency regarding the law.
In short, there must always be those who watch the watchmen. I would love to live in a society where law enforcement officers were always trustworthy, courageous, and brave...but the only way we will ever get there is by rooting out, punishing, and removing the bad apples that spoil the bunch. Because I once wore the uniform of an American soldier, I have great reverence to the symbolism imparted by the uniforms of those we trust to serve and protect. However, too often cops will put their own safety above that of civilians, like Aiyana Jones. They allow their own fears and lack of courage dictate their actions. However, there is a quote from a TV show from more than two decades ago that has always struck me as embodying the true spirit of how a soldier or a police officer must conduct themselves when dealing with situations where civilians could be hurt. It is from an episode of the show Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and the character of Captain Sisko is explaining why one of his subordinates should not have fired on a vessel that he thought was a threat, but which turned out to be a civilian vessel. He said:
You made a military decision, to protect your ship and crew. But you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle, and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.
(Watch the full scene here)
Now I do not wear a uniform any longer. However, I am still bound to my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic, and that includes corrupt cops. And if you or a loved one has been damaged by the unlawful actions of those corrupt cops, then I want to help you. The Constitution, and the laws of the United States, do not take “sides” for or against cops. They side with what is just, honorable, and lawful. And if you are on the other side from them, I want to be there to do what is right.
1 It has been well-settled law in Florida since 1976 that you cannot be arrested for “disorderly conduct” on the basis of speech alone, even if you use naughty words, See, State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla.1976), or even if those naughty words are directed at law enforcement, Fields v. State, 24 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
More News & Resources
Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.
The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.
While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024
Professional discipline in one state can affect a professional license in another state. Don’t run. Get help up front.
ERIC HAKEEM DEONTAYE MAYS, late Councilman Eric Mays's son and only next of kin, along with Bishop Patrick Munnerlyn, Community Outreach Specialist for the Lento Law Group, cordially invites the Flint community to a candlelight vigil to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Councilman Eric B. Mays. The vigil will take place on Saturday, March 2, at 6:00 PM in front of Flint City Hall, as we come together to celebrate a true hero of Flint, a relentless champion for the community, a visionary leader, a devoted public servant, and a cherished friend. Councilman Mays was a beacon of hope and strength for Flint, advocating tirelessly for the rights and well-being of its residents. His unwavering dedication to serving the community has left an indelible mark on the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing him. As we gather to remember his remarkable contributions, let us light candles in unity to illuminate the path he paved toward a brighter future for Flint. This vigil is an opportunity for us to reflect on the profound impact of Councilman Mays’ work, to share stories of his courage and kindness, and to reaffirm our commitment to the values he embodied. Participants are welcome to bring their own candles, but candles will also be provided (as long as supplies last) to ensure that everyone can join in this act of remembrance and solidarity. Councilman Mays’ love for the people of Flint was boundless, and in return, he was deeply loved and respected by the community he served. As we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the legacy of a man who dedicated his life to making Flint a better place for all its residents. It has indeed been a sad week in Flint, but let us come together to honor a man who gave so much of himself to our city. Join us in front of Flint City Hall to pay tribute to Councilman Eric B. Mays, a man who deserves the best: our collective love, respect, and admiration. We invite everyone to come and show their support by standing in solidarity as we remember a great man who has left an everlasting mark on our community. Atlanta, GA • Birmingham, AL • Boulder, CO • Coral Springs, FL • Detroit, MI • El Paso, TX • Flint, MI • Honolulu, HI • Los Angeles, CA • Maui, HI Miami, FL • Mount Laurel, NJ • Newark, NJ • New York, NY • Orlando, FL • Philadelphia, PA • Puerta Plata, DR •Richmond, VA • Salt Lake City, UT San Juan, PR • Scottsdale, AZ • Washington, DC