HOPE for "color of law" cases

[admin]

Thought I would share a few similar cases which were investigated and acted upon, for the sake of giving us all a little hope when this all seems too impossible to see an end.

These cases are proof that the "madness" can eventually end when citizens share their information with an investigative agency, so PLEASE, make that call and share information that you may have been holding back in your mind waiting for that day when the right opportunity presented itself - THE TIME IS NOW.

Preble County information, FBI
937-512-1935

All documents and hardcopy materials need to be sent to:
PO BOX 10091
DAYTON OH 45402

[admin]

U.S. v. LANIER
Western District of Tennessee
Indicted May 20, 1992

David Lanier was an elected state judge serving Dyer County, a rural area of western Tennessee. For years, Judge David Lanier sexually assaulted a number of women who appeared before him as litigants or who worked for him as clerks, probation officers or secretaries. Because Judge Lanier came from a powerful family, it was difficult for local authorities to act. In fact, the District Attorney for Dyer County was Judge Lanier's brother. Consequently, federal authorities spearheaded the investigation which culminated in 11 civil rights counts charging Lanier with various kinds of sexual assault against five women, including two instances of forced oral copulation.
Several women braved their fear of retaliation, community criticism, and personal embarrassment to recount their experiences by giving evidence to the federal grand jury. They claimed that between 1989 and 1991 Judge Lanier had systematically sexually assaulted them in his chambers and in his courtroom. Many of the victims were single mothers, emotionally and economically vulnerable, who sought redress in court or well-paying courthouse jobs in an economically depressed community. The federal grand jury undertook a six-month grand jury investigation conducted jointly by the Criminal Section and the local U.S. Attorney. Judge Lanier was subsequently indicted on eleven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 for having deprived the women of their constitutional due process right to be free from sexual assault.
Overcoming substantial reluctance to testify publicly, the victims' damaging testimony about the judge's behavior resulted in his convictions in December 1992 for conduct that ranged from willful grabbing and groping of the victims' breasts and genitalia to forced oral copulation. Before trial, he was jailed when his bail was revoked for having improperly contacted the witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony at trial. He received the maximum prison sentence of 25 years and was fined $25,000. The state legislature subsequently removed him from office. Judge Lanier was an unusual defendant -- highly educated, influential in his community and trained in the law. He vigorously represented himself and sought publicity by appearing on national prime time news shows. He pursued his appeal rights to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which initially upheld the conviction but then later reversed itself on rehearing, determining that the indictment should be dismissed because the due process clause did not afford protection against sexual assaults. The federal Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which essentially sided with the Government, ordering the Sixth Circuit to revisit the standards it had applied to dismiss the indictment. The Sixth Circuit then ordered Lanier to return to custody pending a new review. Lanier, however, fled to Mexico, but was soon captured by U.S. Marshals after his case was made the subject of a television episode on America's Most Wanted. Despite losing his right of appeal because he was a fugitive, Lanier continued to pursue reversal of his conviction by seeking a new trial, arguing the discovery of new evidence. That final motion was denied in June 1999, almost seven years after his original conviction. Having exhausted all of his procedural options, Lanier will probably serve the remainder of his life in prison.

[admin]

Note that along with the officers who perpetrated the crime, the supervisor who failed to do anything about these officers was also charged...


U.S. v. KOON, et al.
Central District of California
Indicted August 4, 1992

The videotaped beating of Rodney King by officers of the Los Angles Police Department on March 3, 1991 led to one of the most significant and well-known official misconduct/police beating cases in the history of the Criminal Section, receiving international attention. After the videotape of the beating was aired on nationwide television, the Criminal Section immediately opened its investigation, pending the outcome of the local trial of the four defendant police officers on state charges in California. When that trial ended a year later with the acquittal of all the officers, rioting broke out throughout Los Angeles, resulting in deaths and property damage.
A team of federal prosecutors from both the Criminal Section as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles then undertook an exhaustive investigation, in which new evidence was developed during three months of grand jury. On August 4, 1992, the same four officers were indicted on two federal counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 -- three officers for the excessive beating of King and the fourth (the supervisory sergeant) for failing to stop them. The federal prosecutors had to overcome major evidentiary hurdles to develop evidence independent of the state prosecution and not derived from compelled statements made by police officers that could have compromised the federal case.
Despite the potential for additional civil unrest locally and nationwide, and the difficulties of empaneling an impartial jury, the two-month federal trial of the four Los Angeles police officers ultimately ended with the conviction in April 1993 of two of the four officers, Sgt. Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at the scene, and Officer Laurence Powell, the officer who had delivered the most number of blows to King. Both defendants were sentenced to 30 months in prison, after appealing their sentences to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a result of this incident, the City of Los Angeles undertook a Department-wide review of its police practices. While this incident received tremendous public attention, it was not unique but rather representative of the numerous incidents of official misconduct regularly reviewed and prosecuted by the Criminal Section. The attendant publicity may also have led to a misconception that, because the victim was black, the officers charged with his beating were white and then indicted on civil rights violations, racial motivation was an essential element of the federal crime. However, as explained elsewhere on this site, the applicable federal criminal civil rights law used in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 242, pertains regardless of the race, national origin, or color of the victim or the defendant. It is the abuse of authority under "color of law" that is critical.

[admin]

This is what happens when citizen's band together and make an official complaint to an outside investigating agency when their local authorities are incapable of managing those same complaints....


Janet E. Jackson, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Columbus
90 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-9013
Dear Ms. Jackson:
As you are aware, the Civil Rights Division has been conducting a civil investigation pursuant to federal civil rights laws of allegations of police misconduct by officers of the Columbus Division of Police ("CDP"). As a result of our investigation, we have determined that CDP officers are engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, making false arrests and lodging false charges, and conducting improper searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Accordingly, I have authorized the filing of a civil suit in United States District Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to obtain equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice of misconduct. We would be willing to defer filing suit, however, if you are interested in negotiating a voluntary settlement in the form of a consent decree to be filed with our civil complaint.
Our investigation further has examined whether the CDP discriminates on the basis of race in its treatment of civilians, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c). These statutes, together, prohibit law enforcement agencies that receive Justice Department financial assistance (such as the CDP) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. At this juncture, we have not reached any conclusion about whether the CDP has violated these statutes in its treatment of civilians, and our investigation of this issue is continuing. We also understand that a separate investigation is being conducted by the Office for Civil Rights in the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs into allegations that the CDP is engaging in employment discrimination in violation of Title VI and the Safe Streets Act.
The information we have reviewed in conducting this investigation includes: CDP internal files relating to over 300 citizen complaints of misconduct filed with the CDP; documents from recent civil lawsuits against the City and CDP officers relating to police misconduct; CDP "use of force" reports, "injury to prisoner" reports, and reports on the use of mace; statistical data on citizen complaints and other matters that are maintained on computer by the CDP; policies and procedures of the CDP relating to the supervision and monitoring of officers, the receipt of citizen complaints, and the investigation and adjudication of citizen complaints; the June 30, 1997 Mayoral Investigative Report of the Columbus Division of Police; the April 14, 1998 report of Chief Jackson to the mayor; and other city documents that address whether reforms are needed in CDP management practices. We also have interviewed numerous individuals, and have met with city officials including you, the Chief of Police, and the Director of Public Safety.
Our investigation indicates that incidents of police misconduct in Columbus frequently share many common elements. Many of the victims of excessive force, false arrest or charges, and/or an improper search are, at the time when the misconduct occurs, carrying out some ordinary, routine daily activity (either not violating the law or committing some minor infraction). Misconduct often is triggered by the officer's perception that the victim in some way disrespected the officer, although often the victim's conduct in fact is relatively or completely innocuous. On other occasions, the misconduct stems from some emotional turmoil experienced by the officer resulting from some unrelated, prior occurrence, or involves other misconduct. Often, victims are arrested and charged with such crimes as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and/or obstruction of official business, but the charges then are dismissed or the victim is found not guilty. Victims frequently are African American, or are young, female, or lower income whites. The officers involved in misconduct many times have a history of complaints against them, and fail to report accurately to their superiors what transpired in the incident (changing the facts to portray the victim as responsible for the arrest, the use of force, and/or the search).
Our investigation further indicates that the pattern or practice of misconduct is tolerated by the failure of the CDP to adopt and implement proper management practices and procedures. There exist significant problems with the manner in which the CDP trains, supervises, and monitors police officers, investigates and adjudicates citizen complaints, and disciplines officers who are found guilty of misconduct. The management deficiencies include:
inadequate academy and in-service training, and the absence of an appropriate system for reviewing the effectiveness of training or for reviewing individual incidents to determine the training needs of police personnel;

an overly restrictive definition of what constitutes a use of force (which excludes, among other things, the use of mace and some forms of "hands on" force); the restrictive definition in turn limits reporting and supervision of uses of force, undermines citizen complaints of excessive force where the force used is not "force" according to the CDP, and encourages the use and misuse of force that is not "force" according to the CDP;

a complaint process that discourages complainants at intake and transforms about half of the complaints that are filed into "inquiries" that are not properly investigated;

a process for investigating complaints, uses of force (lethal and non-lethal), and injuries to prisoners that is biased in favor of the involved officers; and

the absence of any comprehensive, effective system for monitoring and addressing patterns of conduct by individual officers, and patterns of conduct that are unit-wide or Division-wide.
We recognize that city officials have discussed some potential reforms and that, in particular, efforts are being made to improve training. We also have spoken with city officials who expressed a desire to work toward positive reform of police practices. We hope to build on this and work together with all involved to settle this matter through the entry of a consent decree enforceable by the United States District Court. To that end, Mark A. Posner, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, will contact you shortly to discuss this matter.
Sincerely, Bill Lann Lee
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

[admin]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v. CITY OF STEUBENVILLE, STEUBENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEUBENVILLE CITY MANAGER, in his capacity as Director of Public Safety, and STEUBENVILLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. Defendants.


COMPLAINT
The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Steubenville Police Department that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The City of Steubenville, the Steubenville Police Department, and the Steubenville City Manager (in his capacity as Director of Public Safety) have engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting individuals to excessive force; false arrests, charges, and reports; improper stops, searches, and seizures. These defendants have caused and condoned this conduct through their inadequate use-of-force policies; inappropriate off-duty conduct policies; and failure to supervise, train, discipline, monitor, and investigate police officers and alleged misconduct.
The United States of America alleges:
DEFENDANTS
1. The City of Steubenville ("City") is a municipality in the State of Ohio.
2. The Steubenville Police Department ("SPD") is a law enforcement agency operated by the City.
3. The City Manager is an employee of the City who serves as the Director of Public Safety, and in that capacity, oversees the SPD and other agencies operated for the safety of persons in Steubenville.
4. The Steubenville Civil Service Commission is an agency of the City with authority for hiring and disciplining SPD officers. The Civil Service Commission is an appropriate party in this action because in its absence, complete relief cannot be accorded.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
6. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
7. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the defendants reside in and the claim arose in the Southern District of Ohio.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. From at least 1990 to the present, SPD officers have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of using excessive force against persons in Steubenville. This use of excessive force includes, but is not limited to:
a. use of excessive force in effecting arrests or detaining persons suspected of engaging in criminal activity;
b. use of excessive force against individuals in police custody (including persons handcuffed or otherwise physically restrained); and
c. use of excessive force against individuals by police officers who are off-duty and involved in private disputes but acting under color of law.
9. From at least 1990 to the present, SPD officers have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of falsely arresting and charging persons in Steubenville. These false arrests and charges include, but are not limited to:
a. false arrests or charges against persons who witness incidents of police misconduct, who are known critics of the SPD, or who are disliked by individual SPD officers;
b. false arrests or charges against persons who are believed likely to complain of police misconduct; and
c. false arrests or charges against persons who behave disrepectfully but noncriminally to police officers.
10. From at least 1990 to the present, SPD officers have engaged in other misbehavior, including, but not limited to:
a. falsifying official reports;
b. tampering with official police recorders so that police misconduct is not recorded;
c. improperly searching dwellings or places of business without lawful authority; and
d. improperly seizing property of persons arrested or stopped by SPD officers without lawful authority for such seizures.
11. The acts or omissions of SPD officers, described in paragraphs 8-10, above, constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
12. From at least 1990 to the present, the City of Steubenville, the SPD, and the City Manager (collectively, "the City defendants") have caused and condoned the acts of individual officers, described in paragraphs 8-10, above, through their acts or omissions. These acts or omissions include, but are not limited to the following:
13. The City defendants have failed to implement a policy on use of force and off-duty behavior that appropriately guide the actions of individual officers.
14. The City defendants have failed to train SPD officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct.
15. The City defendants have failed to supervise SPD officers adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct.
16. The City defendants have failed to monitor adequately SPD officers who engage in or who are likely to engage in misconduct.
17. The City defendants have failed to investigate adequately civilian complaints and other allegations of police misconduct.
18. The City defendants have failed to discipline adequately SPD officers who engage in misconduct.
19. The City defendants have condoned or encouraged retaliation against individuals who complain of misconduct by SPD officers or by the SPD as a whole.
CAUSE OF ACTION
20. Through the actions described in paragraphs 8-19 above, the City defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by SPD officers that deprives persons in Steubenville of rights, privileges, or immunities secured and protected by the Constitution (including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) or the laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to seek declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement officer conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. declare that the City defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice by SPD officers of depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, as described in paragraphs 8-19, above;
b. order the City defendants to refrain from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or practice of conduct as described in paragraphs 8-19, above;
c. order the City defendants to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern or practice of conduct described in paragraphs 8-19, above, and to prevent officers from depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
d. order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.

JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States
SHARON J. ZEALEY, United States Attorney, Southern District of Ohio
Two Nationwide Plaza
4th Floor
280 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
[phone]
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM, Chief,
MELLIE H. NELSON, Deputy Chief
U.S. Department of Justice
Special Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
MARGO SCHLANGER
MARK MASLING
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
P.O. Box 66400
Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 [phone]

[admin]

A case of official corruption investigated by the FBI...

www.fbi.gov/page2/jan07/cityhall010807.htm

Most of the corrupt politicians we investigate illegally peddle favors—the proverbial “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” kind, usually with money passed under the table to fully satisfy the itch.

Then there’s Albert Robles.

“He was so corrupt, he basically put an entire city under his thumb,” says Los Angeles Special Agent David Smith, who led the case for the FBI.

Robles is now serving a 10-year sentence for his 30 fraud and corruption-related crimes while treasurer of South Gate, California—a largely industrial community about 12 miles outside downtown Los Angles. The city is run by a popularly elected five-member city council, which in turn names the Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

Once elected city treasurer in 1997, Robles’ seemed determined to rule the city—purely to his own benefit. He even proclaimed himself “King of South Gate”…and referred to the city as his “fiefdom.”

His corrupt tactics included:

Using the city’s treasury as his “private piggy bank for himself, his family, and his friends” (according to acting U.S. Attorney George Cardona), costing South Gate more than $35 million and bringing it to the verge of bankruptcy;
Firing city hall employees at will, replacing them with supporters who had little experience;
Recruiting and bankrolling unqualified local supporters for city council until he controlled the council; and
Threatening anyone who stood in his way (suspiciously, one of his adversaries on the city council was shot in the head).
For the love of money. Robles and his corrupt cronies cooked up several schemes to line their own pockets. In one, Robles coerced businesses to hire a financial consultant named Edward Espinoza in order to win various city contracts, including for senior housing and sewer rehabilitation projects.

As part of this plan, Robles and Espinoza set up a shell corporation that raked in some $2.4 million—more than $1.4 million of which went straight into Robles’ pockets. He used part of the money to buy a $165,000 beach condo in Baja for his mother; he also forked over $55,000 for “platinum membership” in a motivational group.

In another scheme, Robles steered a $48 million refuse and recycling contract to a company in exchange for more than $30,000 in gifts and campaign contributions.

Making the case. Four agents in our L.A. office and one IRS agent worked to gather the proof—conducting dozens of interviews, poring over financial records, and examining information from seized computers. “We opened the case in June 2000…and spent many months getting everything together to show the length and breadth of Robles’ corruption,” says Smith.

In the end. The citizens of South Gate ultimately voted Robles and his cronies out of office (but not before he racked up huge legal bills at the city’s expense), and he was convicted at trial in July 2005. Two of his business associates—including Espinoza—also went to prison.

It’s a good case in point why we’ve made rooting out public corruption our fourth highest priority—and our top criminal one. We’ve helped convict more than 1,000 federal, state, and local government officials in the last two years alone.

Resources: Sentencing Press Release | FBI Public Corruption webpage

[smokesbiggestfan]

PC authorities have hidden behind this for over 30 years. Hopefully this forum will help bring that to a close.