bad BAD COP!!!

[Marlin T]

Family Says 911 Tape Caught Cops Planning Cover-Up After Shooting


By JAMIE ROSS
ShareThis

PHOENIX (CN) - A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.
In their complaint in Maricopa County Court, Anthony and Lesley Arambula say an armed intruder "crashed through the front window" of their home on Sept. 17, 2008 and ran into one of their son's bedrooms.
Anthony, worried about his son who was still in his bedroom, says he "held the intruder calmly at gunpoint" and called 911.
Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers.
Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground.
The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there."
The complaint states that Officer Lilly "admitted that it was only after Tony was laying, bullet-ridden, on the ground that he assessed the situation. The 911 tape continued to record what happened even after Officer Lilly unloaded his weapon into Tony, including Officer Lilly's post-shooting, one-word 'assessment': '****.'
"Tony believed he was going to die; the 911 tape records his plaintive goodbye to his family: '... I love you ... I love you.' Then Tony made what he believed was a dying request to the officers; he did not want his young family to see him shot and bloodied. Officers callously ignored his request and painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary."
The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and "drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writing in pain."
According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We ****ed up."
Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint.
The complaint states: "Sgt. Coutts knew that officers has just shot up and likely killed an innocent homeowner and the husband of Lesley, with whom he had spoken before entering the home, instead of the armed intruder. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'"
Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun.
The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'"
After the shooting, the Arambulas say, the Phoenix Police Department treated them "like suspects in a drug bust," denying Lesley, Michael and Zachary information about Anthony's condition and denying friends and family members access to him at the hospital.
Anthony Arambula survived, but continues to suffer pain, which he expects will last for the rest of his life.
The City of Phoenix and Officer Dzenan Ahmetovic also are named as defendants.
The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress. They are represented by Michael Manning with Stinson Morrison Hecker.


http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...rotectandserve

[artabr]

I saw this on a local forum a couple of days ago. This is the kind of thing the gives a black eye to all of the LEO's who put their lives on the line every day.
That being said, if this is what happened, I hope that they burn ALL of those who are responsible for both the shooting and the cover up.


Art

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by artabr

I saw this on a local forum a couple of days ago. This is the kind of thing the gives a black eye to all of the LEO's who put their lives on the line every day.
That being said, if this is what happened, I hope that they burn ALL of those who are responsible for both the shooting and the cover up.


Art

I agree Art. Unfortunately the public tends to judge the many fine cops by the action of a few a** holes.

This was a terrible misjudgement followed by a callous and criminal attitude after the fact.

[Doc1911]

I am not so sure of that "whole" story (which happened app. a year ago). A shooting did take place, but possibly not with "all" those events as explained in the report. The officer was cleared by a police board in regards to the shooting. While the PD will lose a civil suit (a given normally), there seems to be no criminal or civil charges (gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress) for a coverup.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by Doc1911

I am not so sure of that "whole" story (which happened app. a year ago). A shooting did take place, but possibly not with "all" those events as explained in the report. The officer was cleared by a police board in regards to the shooting. While the PD will lose a civil suit (a given normally), there seems to be no criminal or civil charges (gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress) for a coverup.

Ah, interesting detail. I wasn't aware that this happened that long ago. If the cop received no punitive action for this then there MUST be more to the story.

[Keystone]

There are always going to be a few BAD cops out there. I hate to say this but it is the sad truth.

[Nighthawk]

Originally Posted by Doc1911

I am not so sure of that "whole" story (which happened app. a year ago). A shooting did take place, but possibly not with "all" those events as explained in the report. The officer was cleared by a police board in regards to the shooting. While the PD will lose a civil suit (a given normally), there seems to be no criminal or civil charges (gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress) for a coverup.

But most of public do not trust police boards. Police have a reputation of protecting their own. I knew a
Sargent who was ostracized for turning in fellow officers. They were kicked off force and some prosecuted
but he was then the enemy to other officers.

[Doc1911]

Originally Posted by Nighthawk

But most of public do not trust police boards. Police have a reputation of protecting their own. I knew a
Sargent who was ostracized for turning in fellow officers. They were kicked off force and some prosecuted
but he was then the enemy to other officers.

I am not sure what statistical data you have to claim MOST of the public do not trust police boards, but even if that is true, MOST people on this forum state they do not trust liberal, anti-gun papers either – but yet your opinion is being based upon one (Courthouse News Service is a news wire for lawyers and while its reporting on appellate rulings, new legislation is normally accurate, it is NOT an investigative much-less conservative newspaper… attorneys vs. cops, etc.).

The Use of Force Review Board in Phoenix includes an officers’ commanders and peers as well as two citizens. This same board recently found another police officer in another shooting administratively guilty. Later criminal charges were filed against the officer in this other case. This Board also has MORE evidence than we are reading in this poorly written article. Are they part of the so-called cover-up? I don’t know. However, I think we need to consider their findings at least as much as the article’s.

My point in my posts is WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS. Therefore, we should not be making a rush to judgment – like saying “bad BAD COP!!!” “cover-up,” believe every word of a biased article, etc. While I will admit that some LEOs protect their own (I have arrested some bad cops [and attorneys, even a judge, etc.] and saw them do time for their felonies), so do defendants and families. As a matter of fact the victim’s wife in this case has changed her story – which the police have documented.

As for the media they like their names in the news as well, so they write/edit a certain way! Ask yourself some questions about the article. Why didn’t they state that the officer in question was cleared by a Board? Why are they using the word “cover-up” when the lawsuit filed against the department DOES NOT use this terminology? If not being used by an attorney in a multi-million $$$ lawsuit, the officers wording must have been explained and understood to mean something other than “cover-up.” Then look at this:

“Officers …. painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary." The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writing in pain."

Is this even believable? If you were a cop and had just shot someone – is this what you would do with all those witnesses around (children, wife, neighbors – there was a shooting outside seconds before this …. the neighborhood was awake)? During “all” this, the cops allegedly dragged the homeowner by his “injured leg” (but he was shot 6 times in the back, right - not in the leg? – in reality he had wounds to his hand, knee (top of knee entry), leg, and back –the article was WRONG), put him on the hood of a car, and drove him down the street? Were the cops trying to hide the body by taking it down the street? Something is NOT RIGHT here. (PS: shooting someone in the back is NOT necessarily an unjustified shooting …).

With so many unanswered questions, IMO, the article seems to be an embellishment of only one side of the story. If indeed, the officers DID everything as the article states – then they deserve a nice long prison term – like life. However, if the victim is embellishing the case – then we know he voted for Obama and will still win a law suit …

No matter what, the department appears to need re-training on how to approach these type situations, as IMO it was poorly handled (according to the tactics I was taught …). The Phoenix PD SAU Unit (SWAT) assisted me one time getting a homicide suspect. They did everything by the book. So, I know the training is available.

You can listen to part of the video here. It shows you how fast everything went down. A lot of it is difficult to make out, but: ABC 15

[artabr]

As much is I support LEO's, I'd rather trust a Grand Jury that an "unbiased" internal review board.
They are in a position to incriminate their department and thus have their department sued if they rule against the officers.
My lawyer would be saying "see you in court".


Art

[Doc1911]

Originally Posted by artabr

As much is I support LEO's, I'd rather trust a Grand Jury that an "unbiased" internal review board.
They are in a position to incriminate their department and thus have their department sued if they rule against the officers.
My lawyer would be saying "see you in court".


Art

Actually, the Dept is getting sued no matter what a Review Board says. In our Dept. we had no fear of firing or disciplining a person - we would do so if they broke procedure. Integrity actually won our Dept. 2 cases - in which the officer was found civilly guilty. However, not all Depts are like mine was, so I can understand thoughts to the contrary ....

A Grand Jury is only impaneled if a criminal offense has taken place. In this case the attorney suing is not even claiming such. The evidence does not support it.

[artabr]

Originally Posted by Doc1911

Actually, the Dept is getting sued no matter what a Review Board says. In our Dept. we had no fear of firing or disciplining a person - we would do so if they broke procedure. Integrity actually won our Dept. 2 cases - in which the officer was found civilly guilty. However, not all Depts are like mine was, so I can understand thoughts to the contrary ....

A Grand Jury is only impaneled if a criminal offense has taken place. In this case the attorney suing is not even claiming such. The evidence does not support it.

All Officer involved shootings in the state of Louisiana are automatically turned over to the La. State Police for investigation, completely (as much as can be) removing the officers department from the investigation. There is a lot to be said for independent investigation.


Art

[Doc1911]

Originally Posted by artabr

All Officer involved shootings in the state of Louisiana are automatically turned over to the La. State Police for investigation, completely (as much as can be) removing the officers department from the investigation. There is a lot to be said for independent investigation.


Art

Agreed. Most departments have some type of system, but it varies from State to State and even county to county. Our department had civilians and the Head of IA on their panel. The citizens were selected at random from the people selected for jury duty on any given month. The head of IA presented the case, but also understood police procedures for each division of the police department. He though had no voting rights and the panel had to have a 100% agreement on any verdict.

[40CalJoe]

On the surface, it certainly does not sound good. Natural tendancy is to wonder how times this happens, one cop covering for another. Hopefully its isolated. You would like trust those sworn to uphold the law would do so even against one of their own.

I'm sure more of this story will come out to fill in the blanks.

[artabr]

Originally Posted by Doc1911

Agreed. Most departments have some type of system, but it varies from State to State and even county to county. Our department had civilians and the Head of IA on their panel. The citizens were selected at random from the people selected for jury duty on any given month. The head of IA presented the case, but also understood police procedures for each division of the police department. He though had no voting rights and the panel had to have a 100% agreement on any verdict.

This, I think, would be a very workable system. It takes the department out of the decision making part of the process and removes most/all suspicion or doubt off of the backs of the department.
It also helps the department with positive P.R. by having the public interaction with the force.


Art

[Marlin T]

Where is that 911 tape at?
That would clear up a lot of what happened.

I'm holding my opinion till more facts come out, but holyshoot, if this story is anything like it says it is....

[Doc1911]

Originally Posted by Marlin T

Where is that 911 tape at?
That would clear up a lot of what happened.

I'm holding my opinion till more facts come out, but holyshoot, if this story is anything like it says it is....

See my post above ABC 15. The tape is not that clear but can be made out.

This is a year old. So until the civil suit - which will probably be a settlement out of court - there will not be much more.

[RunningOnMT]

It has always seemed to me that police IA's are tougher on their own than the average jury would be on a civilian charged with comparable crimes. That's why IA is both disliked and feared in so many police departments across the country.

Yeah cops may circle the wagons and cover their friends a**es just like doctors and many others in various professions. But Internal Affairs are not part of that circle. at least not in most police departments.

[ssatch]

so far as internal affairs goes, I can tell you from first hand experience that it took no less than three trips to internal affairs for a bad cop that I knew to get kicked off the force...he was basically being a look out for thugs breaking into places in his zone...finally after the third time before them they had no choice and had to can him....of course he never was taken to court or anything, he just got canned....so, no...I've got no confidence in IA....

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by ssatch

so far as internal affairs goes, I can tell you from first hand experience that it took no less than three trips to internal affairs for a bad cop that I knew to get kicked off the force...he was basically being a look out for thugs breaking into places in his zone...finally after the third time before them they had no choice and had to can him....of course he never was taken to court or anything, he just got canned....so, no...I've got no confidence in IA....

Welcome to TFF. I assume by your comments then that you are a cop yourself???

[Artemus]

Stories in the news are never the full story.Sometimes the full story is not known for months.I have seen Police misconduct yes.I have also seen outrageous claims by perps and their families.What some folks don't understand is that scumbags have nothing to lose but everything to gain.When someone is hurt during an arrest,many families of scumbags see dollar signs.They will say anything to make the cops look bad.In fact they will lie so much that I truly believe that they actually start believing their own lies after a while.
How most of the cops survive many of these accusations is that after interviewing neighbors you find out what kind of people they are.Also in court,their past criminal records are brought up and their credibility crumbles.I am not trying to say there are not bad cops out there because there are.However,if cops were fired as soon as someone made a complaint against him or her,there would be no Police forces anywhere.The only cops that never get complaints against them are cops that are out there not doing their jobs.

[ssatch]

nope, i'm not a cop and never have been... but he worked for my father before he became a cop...he started out with what was called the police aux. which was volunteer and then decided to go full time and become a cop...seriously, he was the type cop that gives all the cops a bad rep...but please don't think that i'm anti cop, got two in my family, a cousin and a son in law and they both know that i don't like the kind of cop this guy was !..lol

[SaddleSarge]

Runnin, you are correct.

In my particular area, as soon as the IA leads into the criminal realm, the DA's office takes over. Because in certain instances, LEO's can be "compelled" to give a statement outside of what citizens are granted under the 5th amendment when facing a disciplinary hearing in which most IA's are considered until that criminal threshold is reached.

Basically, the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights afforded Police Officers "almost" the same rights as citizens under the Miranda ruling for on the job policy violations and some guarantees that weren't afforded till that time. Criminal proceedings are beyond this.

In "most" jurisdictions (CA and outside), departments handle IA's for "policy" violations (of which can be violated even off duty in many instances) which are basically within the "civil" realm in nature. When was the last time a citizen got days off without pay after having been compelled to give a statement, or for activities conducted while NOT at work and not affecting the place of employment? Then possibly never to be hired within that venue for the rest of their life because of that one incident or action?

Otherwise, once it goes within the criminal realm, the officer MUST be advised and then afforded the same rights as guaranteed by the constitution, also known as the, "Miranda Advisement."

Hope this helps give an insight to IA's to those who do not understand the difference between an "IA" and a "Criminal Proceeding":

Public Safety Officers Procedural
Bill of Rights Act.
Government Code Sections 3300-3312



3300- Title

This chapter is known and may be cited as the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

3301- Definition; Legislative findings and declaration
For purposes of this chapter, the term public safety officer means all peace officers specified in Sections 830.1, 830.2, 830.3, 830.31, 830.32, 830.33, except subdivision (e), 830.34, 830.35, except subdivision ©, 830.36, 830.37, 830.38, 830.4, and 830.5 of the Penal Code.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the rights and protections provided to peace officers under this chapter constitute a matter of statewide concern. The Legislature further finds and declares that effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of stable employer-employee relations, between public safety employees and their employers. In order to assure that stable relations are continued throughout the state and to further assure that effective services are provided to all people of the state, it is necessary that this chapter be applicable to all public safety officers, as defined in this section, wherever situated within the State of California.
3302- Political activity: Membership on school board

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer shall be prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity.

(b) No public safety officer shall be prohibited from seeking election to, or serving as a member of, the governing board of a school district.

3303-Investigations interrogations; conduct; conditions; representation; reassignment

When any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her commanding officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, that could lead to punitive action, the interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions. For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action means any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment.

(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise. If the interrogation does occur during off-duty time of the public safety officer being interrogated, the public safety officer shall be compensated for any off-duty time in accordance with regular department procedures, and the public safety officer shall not be released from employment for any work missed.

(b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to the interrogation of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the public safety officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no more than two interrogators at one time.

(c) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation.

(d) The interrogating session shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration gravity and complexity of the issue being investigated. The person under interrogation shall be allowed to attend to his or her own personal physical necessities.

(e) The public safety officer under interrogation shall not be subjected to offensive language or threatened with punitive action, except that an officer refusing to respond to questions or submit to interrogations shall be informed that failure to answer questions directly related to the investigation or interrogation may result in punitive action. No promise of reward shall be made as an inducement to answering any question. The employer shall not cause the public safety officer under interrogation to be subjected to visits by the press or news media without his or her express consent nor shall his or her home address or photograph be given to the press or news media without his or her express consent.

(f) No statement made during interrogation by a public safety officer under duress, coercion, or threat of punitive action shall be admissible in any subsequent civil proceeding. This subdivision is subject to the following qualifications:

(1) This subdivision shall not limit the use of statements made by a public safety officer when the employing public safety department is seeking civil sanctions against any public safety officer, including disciplinary action brought under Section 19572.

(2) This subdivision shall not prevent the admissibility of statements made by the public safety officer under interrogation in any civil action, including administrative actions, brought by that public safety officer, or that officer's exclusive representative, arising out of a disciplinary action.

(3) This subdivision shall not prevent statements made by a public safety officer under interrogation from being used to impeach the testimony of that officer after an in camera review to determine whether the statements serve to impeach the testimony of the officer.

(4) This subdivision shall not otherwise prevent the admissibility of statements made by a public safety officer under interrogation if that officer subsequently is deceased.

(g) The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded. If a tape recording is made of the interrogation, the public safety officer shall have access to the tape if any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any further interrogation at a subsequent time. The public safety officer shall be entitled to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential. No notes or reports that are deemed to be confidential may be entered in the officer's personnel file. The public safety officer being interrogated shall have the right to bring his or her own recording device and record any and all aspects of the interrogation.

(h) If prior to or during the interrogation of a public safety officer it is deemed that he or she may be charged with a criminal offense, he or she shall be immediately informed of his or her constitutional rights.

(i) Upon the filing of a formal written statement of charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely to result in punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall have the right to be represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be present at all times during the interrogation. The representative shall not be a person subject to the same investigation. The representative shall not be required to disclose, nor be subject to any punitive action for refusing to disclose, any information received from the officer under investigation for noncriminal matters.

This section shall not apply to any interrogation of a public safety officer in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with, a supervisor or any other public safety officer, nor shall this section apply to an investigation concerned solely and directly with alleged criminal activities.

(j) No public safety officer shall be loaned or temporarily reassigned to a location or duty assignment if a sworn member of his or her department would not normally be sent to that location or would not normally be given that duty assignment under similar circumstances.



3304-Lawful exercise of rights; insubordination; administrative appeal

(a) No public safety officer shall be subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure. Nothing in this section shall preclude a head of an agency from ordering a public safety officer to cooperate with other agencies involved in criminal investigations. If an officer fails to comply with such an order, the agency may officially charge him or her with insubordination.

(b) No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer who has successfully completed the probationary period that may be required by his or her employing agency without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.

(c) No chief of police may be removed by a public agency, or appointing authority, without providing the chief of police with written notice and the reason or reasons therefore and an opportunity for administrative appeal. For purposes of this subdivision, the removal of a chief of police by a public agency or appointing authority, for the purpose of implementing the goals or policies, or both, of the public agency or appointing authority, for reasons including, but not limited to, incompatibility of management styles or as a result of a change in administration, shall be sufficient to constitute "reason or reasons." Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to create a property interest, where one does not exist by rule or law, in the job of Chief of Police.

(d) Except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency's discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct. This one-year limitation period shall apply only if the act, omission, or other misconduct occurred on or after January 1, 1998. In the event that the public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed disciplinary action within that year, except in any of the following circumstances:

(1) If the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution, the time during which the criminal investigation or criminal prosecution is pending shall toll the one-year time period.

(2) If the public safety officer waives the one-year time period in writing, the time period shall be tolled for the period of time specified in the written waiver.

(3) If the investigation is a multijurisdictional investigation that requires a reasonable extension for coordination of the involved agencies.

(4) If the investigation involves more than one employee and requires a reasonable extension.

(5) If the investigation involves an employee who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable.

(6) If the investigation involves a matter in civil litigation where the public safety officer is named as a party defendant, the one-year time period shall be tolled while that civil action is pending.

(7) If the investigation involves a matter in criminal litigation where the complainant is a criminal defendant, the one-year time period shall be tolled during the period of that defendant's criminal investigation and prosecution.

(8) If the investigation involves an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud on the part of the public safety officer.

(e) Where a predisciplinary response or grievance procedure is required or utilized, the time for this response or procedure shall not be governed or limited by this chapter.

(f) If, after investigation and any predisciplinary response or procedure, the public agency decides to impose discipline, the public agency shall notify the public safety officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline, including the date that the discipline will be imposed, within 30 days of its decision, except if the public safety officer is unavailable for discipline.

(g) Notwithstanding the one-year time period specified in subdivision (c), an investigation may be reopened against a public safety officer if both of the following circumstances exist:

(1) Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.

(2) One of the following conditions exist:

(A) The evidence could not reasonably have been discovered in the normal course of investigation without resorting to extraordinary measures by the agency.

(B) The evidence resulted from the public safety officer's predisciplinary response or procedure.

(h) For those members listed in subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, the 30-day time period provided for in subdivision (e) shall not commence with the service of a preliminary notice of adverse action, should the public agency elect to provide the public safety officer with such a notice.



3304.5- Administrative appeal

An administrative appeal instituted by a public safety officer under this chapter shall be conducted in conformance with rules and procedures adopted by the local public agency.



3305- Comments adverse to interest; personnel files; opportunity to read and sign; refusal to sign

No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment, except that such entry may be made if after reading such instrument the public safety officer refuses to sign it. Should a public safety officer refuse to sign, that fact shall be noted on that document, and signedor initialed by such officer.



3306- Response to adverse comment in personnel file; time

A public safety officer shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in his personnel file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse comment.



3306.5-Inspection of personnel files; request for correction of file; time

(a) Every employer shall, at reasonable times and at reasonable intervals, upon the request of a public safety officer, during usual business hours, with no loss of compensation to the officer, permit that officer to inspect personnel files that are used or have been used to determine that officer's qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or termination or other disciplinary action.

(b) Each employer shall keep each public safety officer's personnel file or a true and correct copy thereof , and shall make the file or copy thereof available within a reasonable period of time after a request therefore by the officer.

(c) If, after examination of the officer's personnel file, the officer believes that any portion of the material is mistakenly or unlawfully placed in the file, the officer may request, in writing, that the mistaken or unlawful portion be corrected or deleted. Any request made pursuant to this subdivision shall include a statement by the officer describing the corrections or deletions from the personnel file requested and the reasons supporting those corrections or deletions. A statement submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall become part of the personnel file of the officer.

(d) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of a request made pursuant to subdivision (c), the employer shall either grant the officer's request or notify the officer of the decision to refuse to grant the request. If the employer refuses to grant the request, in whole or in part, the employer shall state in writing the reasons for refusing the request, and that written statement shall become part of the personnel file of the officer.



3307-Polygraph examination; right to refuse; effect

(a) No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to a lie detector test against his or her will. No disciplinary action or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer refusing to submit to a lie detector test, nor shall any comment be

entered anywhere in the investigator's notes or anywhere else that the public safety officer refused to take, or did not take, a lie detector test, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a subsequent hearing, trial, or proceeding, judicial or administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused to take, or was subjected to, a lie detector test.

(b) For the purpose of this section, "lie detector" means a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device, whether mechanical or electrical, that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.



3307.5-Use of photograph; penalties

(a) No public safety officer shall be required as a condition of employment by his or her employing public safety department or other public agency to consent to the use of his or her photograph or identity as a public safety officer on the Internet for any purpose if that officer reasonably believes that the disclosure may result in a threat, harassment, intimidation, or harm to that officer or his or her family.

(b) Based upon his or her reasonable belief that the disclosure of his or her photograph or identity as a public safety officer on the Internet as described in subdivision (a) may result in a threat, harassment, intimidation, or harm, the officer may notify the department or other public agency to cease and desist from that disclosure. After the notification to cease and desist, the officer, a district attorney, or a United States Attorney may seek an injunction prohibiting any official or unofficial use by the department or other public agency on the Internet of his or her photograph or identity as a public safety officer. The court may impose a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) per day commencing two working days after the date of receipt of the notification to cease and desist.



3308-Financial disclosure; right to refuse; exceptions

No public safety officer shall be required or requested for purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to disclose any item of his property, income, assets, source of income, debts or personal or domestic expenditures (including those of any member of his family or household) unless such information is obtained or required under state law or proper legal procedure, tends to indicate a conflict of interest with respect to the performance of his official duties, or is necessary for the employing agency to ascertain the desirability of assigning the public safety officer to a specialized unit in which there is a strong possibility that bribes or other improper inducements may be offered.

3309-Search of locker or storage space; consent; search warrant

No public safety officer shall have his locker, or other space for storage that may be assigned to him searched except in his presence, or with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or where he has been notified that a search will be conducted. This section shall apply only to lockers or other space for storage that are owned or leased by the employing agency.

3309.5-Local public safety officers; applicability of chapter; jurisdiction; remedies

(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter.

(b) Nothing in subdivision (h) of Section 11181 shall be construed to affect the rights and protections afforded to state public safety officers under this chapter or under Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

(c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter.

(d) (1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of alike or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer.

(2) If the court finds that a bad faith or frivolous action or a filing for an improper purpose has been brought pursuant to this chapter, the court may order sanctions against the party filing the action, the parties attorney, or both, pursuant to Sections 128.6 and128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those sanctions may include, but not be limited to, reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by a public safety department, as the court deems appropriate. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to subject actions or filings under this section to rules or standards that are different from those applicable to other civil actions or filings subject to Section 128.6 or 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by a superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied and for reasonable attorney's fees as may be determined by the court. If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages. Notwithstanding these provisions, a public safety department may not be required to indemnify a contractor for the contractor's liability pursuant to this subdivision if there is, within the contract between the public safety department and the contractor, a "hold harmless" or similar provision that protects the public safety department from liability for the actions of the contractor. An individual shall not be liable for any act for which a public safety department is liable under this section.



3310-Procedures of public agency providing same rights or protections;
application of chapter

Any public agency which has adopted, through action of its governing body or its official designee, any procedure which at a minimum provides to peace officers the same rights or protections as provided pursuant to this chapter shall not be subject to this chapter with regard to such a procedure.



3311-Mutual aid agreements; effect of chapter upon

Nothing in this chapter shall in any way be construed to limit the use of any public safety agency or any public safety officer in the fulfilling of mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions or agencies, nor shall this chapter be construed in any way to limit any jurisdictional or interagency cooperation under any circumstances where such activity is deemed necessary or desirable by the jurisdictions or the agencies involved.



3312-American Flag; pins

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the employer of a public safety officer may not take any punitive action against an officer for wearing a pin or displaying any other item containing the American flag, unless the employer gives the officer written notice that includes all of the following:

(a) A statement that the officer's pin or other item violates an existing rule, regulation, policy, or local agency agreement or contract regarding the wearing of a pin, or the displaying of any other item, containing the American flag.

(b) A citation to the specific rule, regulation, policy, or local agency agreement or contract that the pin or other item violates.

(c) A statement that the officer may file an appeal against the employer challenging the alleged violation pursuant to applicable grievance or appeal procedures adopted by the department or public agency that otherwise comply with existing law.

[Doc1911]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

Hope this helps give an insight to IA's to those who do not understand the difference between an "IA" and a "Criminal Proceeding":

Some IA Depts are actually part of the DAs Office and actually not affiliated with any particular police department. In such jurisdictions they can handle both administrative and criminal cases.

In our IA Dept an officer was read his Miranda warning even in administrative cases - as you never know when the line will be crossed from administrative to criminal. We actually had one BEGIN with an officer being drunk in his front yard and he got so caught up in explaining why he got drunk that he ENDED by confessing to child molestation.

[GMFWoodchuck]

Well, I don't know both sides in this story. But the few cops I know don't really help give cops a good name. One, my cousin in the NYPD, stole from his own little sister by selling their Dad's (after he died) house and never giving her any of the money. Unfortunately she hasn't enough backbone to do anything now, and it may be too late now anyway as she was only 13 at the time and is now 20. Another cop in the town I used to live in impersonated a state trooper to get into people's houses and take "evidence" Of course all this stuff has always disappeared, presumably after sale. He was arrested and convicted of theft, impersonation, and etc. Another cop from the same dept claimed a work injury so she could be out on disability, While out she worked in a mall accross the state line (15 minutes away) as a security guard. She also ran over a child without reporting it. That was the end of her career. In, fact, almost every cop on the dept had criminal issues. It was so bad, the town voted to get rid of the dept as we were better off without. This was Pawling NY. I know of another cop, deputy rather, he issued a ticket to his own Mom for doing 32 in a 30. This isn't a good example of "bad cop", but it does show the bulliness that can be displayed by them as he was doing the same to anyone he ever had gripes with growing up. I'm glad he never pulled me over.

Another time, my wife had a run in with a neighbor. Big long story and other neighbors were involved and I was away at work in Mass. She finally called the cops. They never came, so she called again over an hour later, in which they came about an half an hour after that. Their excuse was that it was "shift-change." So now I know that if I want to commit a crime in the city of Binghamton to do it at 11 O'clock at night. Which, funny enough is when most things happen....I called them up and complained about it the next day. The Binghamton PD sergeant claimed that it was the county's dispatch's fault. So I called them up, and they said they issued the dispatch to the BPD. I called the Binghamton Sergeant back and explained to him that he had lost my respect, and now I know that I can't count on his police dept to do their jobs and that I will take care off the issues myself in the future and call only the Sheriff and/or the State Police. He didn't like that, "Too bad, do your job next time." I said.

Unfortunately, I personally do not know any "good" cops to give examples of. Which leads me to the predictament that many are in. Are there good cops? I assume most are....I sure hope so anyway......

The trouble with cops and police departments is that the profession attracts two polar opposites type of people. Those who want to help people and those who want to profit from it.

Edit: Oh wait. No, I'm wrong I know one good cop. I went to school with him. He's a New York State Trooper. I've seen him in action. A neighbor of mine was beating up his girlfriend (long story short I stopped it) And he seemed to take offense to domestic violence. He seemed like a decent guy all in all. His father is a minister, I think he is too. Has a family. The usual good family guy stuff, I have never heard anything bad about him, except for when he was a little kid in school. He was a harmless pest then. But, no complaints now.

[Doc1911]

GMFWoodchuck,

There are definitely good and bad cops. I have known both and even arrested some of the later. It is unfortunate that bad cops exist, but in all honesty I think they are in the minority (but any % is too high) - in most departments. When I went to IA School (Louisville, Kentucky) the % was 0.5. This of course does not include those that are not caught, but then again it includes the false charges that are often made by both alleged victims and even police commanders (trying to get rid of an officer). I think the stats though are higher now.