I am the Camera: The grand jury speaks
"I am the camera's eye. I am the machine that shows you the world as I alone see it. Starting from today I am forevcr free of human immobility. I am in perpetual movement. I approach and draw away from things--I crawl under them--I climb on them--I am on the head of a galloping horse—I burst at full speed into a crowd--I run before running soldiers—I throw myself down with the aeroplanes--I fall and I fly at one with the bodies falling or rising through the air"
----Dziga Vertov
The Riverside County Jury issued a report involving the county jail facilities, according to the Press Enterprise.
One recommendation it made was for the installation of more video cameras. The grand jury recommended them for security reasons, but they can be used to record misconduct by correctional deputies as well even if Sheriff Bob Doyle isn't pointing that out.
Several years ago, two deputies beat a male inmate to a pulp after he had asked them for more toilet paper. The two employees are currently facing criminal charges for assault under the color of authority. Charges of sexual battery under the color of authority were also filed against deputies in facilities including that in Indio in recent years.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
The recently released study stated that the county should use all technology available to maintain supervision. It cited inmate complaints and jail areas not under camera surveillance as reasons to add more.
The county is trying to fill 54 new positions for correctional deputies at the five jails throughout the county, which together confine more than 3,500 inmates a day, said Sheriff Bob Doyle.
The jails are required by federal court order to begin releasing inmates once they reach 98 percent capacity. That leaves much of the county's jail system filled with people accused of violent crimes who are awaiting trail and those convicted of crimes who are waiting to be transferred to the state prison system, which is even more crowded.
For Doyle, that's all the more reason to have more cameras.
"It's good to have visibility wherever we can in the jail," Doyle said.
The county is required to respond back with its own report within 90 days. Maybe the Sheriff's Department could also install digital video recording technology in its cars like the Riverside Police Department is still trying to do. However, given the rash of sexual misconduct cases involving the deputies in that department including that of Deputy David Kushner, it might be more useful to have cameras that record inside the squad cars.
Quite a few Riverside County Sheriff's Department deputies, both sworn and correctional, have criminal cases traveling through the courts in this county. These deputies were reported both by their alleged victims and by other deputies in their department who apparently were sickened enough by what they saw to turn them in. If that is the case, then their actions should be lauded.
This is what good law enforcement officers do. They report misconduct or suspected misconduct in their fellow officers even at the risk of being ostracized by those including higher-ranking officers who still don't get it.
Here's a status report on some of the deputies who are facing criminal charges:
John Wayne Leseberg: Sexual assault, produce great bodily injury on elderly person, dissuading witness and other charged in two cases, plead guilty to burglary and indecent exposure counts. Sentencing is on July 31.
David Kushner: Kidnapping, oral copulation under the threat of authority, sodomy, rape under color of authority and other charges. Jury trial set for Sept. 4.
Michael Vernal: Assault under the color of authority, destroying evidence. Charges affirmed at preliminary hearing. Heading to trial, no date set.
Antonio Gomez: Assault under the color of authority. Charge reduced to misdemeanor. Case at trial readiness conference stage.
Ronnie Tyrell McPhatter: Felony assault, Assault with a deadly weapon and criminal threats. Preliminary hearing set Aug. 3.
Jeffrey Keith Sanders: Sexual battery, kidnapping, lewd conduct, assault under color of authority and other charges. Awaiting preliminary hearing but no date set.
Mark Steven Barrett: Assault with bodily injury(stabbing). Received nine months house arrest and $44,000 in restitution fine in a plea bargain.
Efrain Santos, jr.: Inflict injury on a child, domestic violence, threats. Charges discharged at preliminary hearing
Angela Carol Parks: Conspiracy to commit solicitation to commit murder, Conspiracy to sell drugs and other charges. Charges affirmed at preliminary hearing and going to trial with no date set.
Would any of these deputies been charged with serious criminal misconduct if there were more video cameras installed? Maybe in some cases like in a enclosed space like a jail or inside of a squad car, but if deputies or any other law enforcement officers want to engage in misconduct, they'll find ways to do it outside of the range of a camera.
Still, it can be a useful tool and some day maybe within the current decade, both the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department will have installed the cameras that the heads of the respective agencies and local governments have promised to provide. Not that it's not entertaining to see the city manager's office in Riverside dance around the issue 10 different ways when asked about it, but it should be done in a more timely fashion than it has been.
The county grand jury is an effective tool for filing complaints. It convenes regularly and investigates complaints involving public agencies within Riverside County. Focus of the complaints are allegations of malfeasance and/or legal actions not carried out in a legal manner.
That still doesn't leave them with much time to investigate complaints if all of them out there were filed. Perhaps, there needs to be two grand juries.
Here's a FAQ on what it does. Here are its most recent reports including this latest one which is the one titled, Riverside County Sheriff's Department-Corrections. If you want to file a complaint with the grand jury, here's an application form.
Before you all line up at once, here's some food for thought. The city of Riverside has been the object of a number of grand jury complaints on everything from its housing of private corporations rent-free in the basement of City Hall, to its hiring practices, to that little alleged incident involving Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis, his gun and the woman outside the video rental store and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department's handling of it.
Not one word, report or even peep back on any of them. Remember the grand jury is sitting under a county agency.
Here's the Early Warning System candidate of the day fresh from San Diego County, courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Two fatal shootings, three other excessive force law suits and some admitted misconduct by one San Diego County Sheriff's Department deputy, Mark Ritchie, all in three years.
Richie even testified that he had once kicked a man who was handcuffed.
Coming under fire is District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis who cleared Ritchie in all of his shootings in addition to clearing five deputies involved in five separate shootings which all took place in the Vista area in 2005.
The State Attorney General's office backed Dumanis' decision in one of Ritchie's shootings, that of Jorge Ramirez, but stated in its ruling that it had disagreed with Dumanis' analysis of the incident.
Ramirez had been shot and then lay on the ground wounded while being shot six more times.
(excerpt)
Ritchie told investigators that after he wounded Ramirez, he shot him six times in the chest to “eliminate” the threat he posed because he feared two other robbers would ambush him from behind, according to an internal sheriff's report on the incident, which was obtained before the attorney general's report by The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Ritchie, who worked in the county jails for more than three years before transferring to patrol duty, still faces legal action for the shooting: Ramirez's parents sued the deputy in federal court on claims of excessive force and wrongful death.
Ramirez's father acknowledges that his son was a gang member and drug addict, but said that does not justify his death.
“I would like to see the cops use less force when they are doing their job,” Benny Ramirez said in a recent interview at his Escondido home. “I can't accept he's dead. I keep thinking he's going to do some time and be home in six months.”
Anther day, another internal investigation involving a Los Angeles Police Department officer, according to the Los Angeles Times. It sounds like a cliche but this unit is very busy.
(excerpt)
LAPD Internal Affairs Cmdr. Jim Voge said an officer is the subject of an investigation for shooting the video, and the matter has been referred to his commanding officer for a disciplinary decision. Voge declined to name the officer or provide further details, citing personnel rules.
In a statement to The Times, Harvey Levin, managing editor of TMZ.com, said the firm does not comment on where it gets its material.
Law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, said the officer told investigators he gave the video shot with a cellphone camera to TMZ because he thought it would be fun. Investigators so far have no evidence that the officer was paid for the video clip, the two sources said, but they are still investigating.
The attornies for Riverside Police Department Officer Ryan Wilson submitted more paperwork in court in relation with Wilson's legal efforts to get the Community Police Review Commission to toss out its sustained finding of excessive force against him on the 2004 shooting of Summer Marie Lane.
It's kind of convoluted in terms of trying to figure out exactly what the legal argument is and it's even more confusing to try to guess why the legal eagles are focusing their attention on the CPRC's public report, which isn't binding, and not addressing its official finding, which is binding, in any way, shape or form. Someone from City Hall needs to explain to them what the difference is between the two. The problem is, everyone, including the plaintiffs and the defendants, is on the same page on this troublesome issue.
That said, Wilson and his attorneys are to be commended for at least keeping their legal arguments and rationale transparent. The city has thus failed to do this so far. While the civil courts have records that the city's attorneys have submitted responsive briefs to Wilson's writ, thus far they have yet to be imagined to facilitate the public's access to them. Even with layoffs in the court clerk's office, the delay is still highly unusual given that the writ is scheduled to be heard at the end of this month.
What's interesting is how the attorneys now are alleging that the CPRC has advocated charging Wilson with either murder or manslaughter charges simply because legal language was used by a police commission which uses legal analysis all the time. In fact, the "exonerated" finding used legal language in that it described an action as "legally justified and proper" before it was changed soon after the Lane case's disposition was released. Apparently, the powers that be at City Hall realized how that put them in a bind.
Still, commissioners deliberate allegations of criminal conduct against officers frequently which requires the use of a legal standard.
Chief Russ Leach was deposed in this case and fought hard for his officer, so if Leach has a high regard for him and he's the one who makes all the decisions then Wilson's in fine stead in his job. Leach did aver that he couldn't send Wilson on a ride along with an NBC reporter because he did not want to hear the end of it.[italics, lawyer's]
That's of course in the same deposition that Leach said he would promote Wilson regardless of public opinion if he fulfilled the qualifications for the position, which weakened Wilson's legal argument though I'm fairly sure that wasn't Leach's intention.
After the CPRC issued its findings, Wilson was assigned to be a POPs officer, a rather prestigious position which puts him front and center in the community where he's assigned at any given time. Before that, he had been assigned to receive SWAT training, again a really prestigious position for an officer to be in who had only been employed by the agency a scant three years.
Even under the remote possibility of Wilson being tracked through the department's Early Warning System, Wilson would still be in excellent stead. A recent study of early warning systems showed that officers being tracked by these systems in their agencies had a slighty increased chance of receiving promotions.
(excerpt, Samuel Walker, Geoffrey P. Alpert, and Dennis J. Kenney, National Institute of Justice, 2001)
One disturbing finding was a slight tendency of early warning officers to be
promoted at higher rates than control officers. This issue should be the
subject of future research, which should attempt to identify more precisely
whether some departments tend to reward through promotion the kind of
active (and possibly aggressive) behavior that is likely to cause officers to
be identified by an early warning system.
It seems that far from what was implied or stated in the deposition and accompanying legal briefs that Wilson's career has flourished instead of languished. It's odd how those who dislike the CPRC flip flop from insisting that it's an irrevelent body, then in the next breath(or legal document) acting like it's lord and master over the police department.
Interesting assumption that Leach would as he said, never hear the end of it, given how many complaints he has heard so far on even the idea that he would consider sending Wilson out with a reporter. How many complaints has Leach ever received about officers being assigned to ridealongs by those who he believes would never let him hear the end of it?
*pin drop*
----Dziga Vertov
The Riverside County Jury issued a report involving the county jail facilities, according to the Press Enterprise.
One recommendation it made was for the installation of more video cameras. The grand jury recommended them for security reasons, but they can be used to record misconduct by correctional deputies as well even if Sheriff Bob Doyle isn't pointing that out.
Several years ago, two deputies beat a male inmate to a pulp after he had asked them for more toilet paper. The two employees are currently facing criminal charges for assault under the color of authority. Charges of sexual battery under the color of authority were also filed against deputies in facilities including that in Indio in recent years.
(excerpt, Press Enterprise)
The recently released study stated that the county should use all technology available to maintain supervision. It cited inmate complaints and jail areas not under camera surveillance as reasons to add more.
The county is trying to fill 54 new positions for correctional deputies at the five jails throughout the county, which together confine more than 3,500 inmates a day, said Sheriff Bob Doyle.
The jails are required by federal court order to begin releasing inmates once they reach 98 percent capacity. That leaves much of the county's jail system filled with people accused of violent crimes who are awaiting trail and those convicted of crimes who are waiting to be transferred to the state prison system, which is even more crowded.
For Doyle, that's all the more reason to have more cameras.
"It's good to have visibility wherever we can in the jail," Doyle said.
The county is required to respond back with its own report within 90 days. Maybe the Sheriff's Department could also install digital video recording technology in its cars like the Riverside Police Department is still trying to do. However, given the rash of sexual misconduct cases involving the deputies in that department including that of Deputy David Kushner, it might be more useful to have cameras that record inside the squad cars.
Quite a few Riverside County Sheriff's Department deputies, both sworn and correctional, have criminal cases traveling through the courts in this county. These deputies were reported both by their alleged victims and by other deputies in their department who apparently were sickened enough by what they saw to turn them in. If that is the case, then their actions should be lauded.
This is what good law enforcement officers do. They report misconduct or suspected misconduct in their fellow officers even at the risk of being ostracized by those including higher-ranking officers who still don't get it.
Here's a status report on some of the deputies who are facing criminal charges:
John Wayne Leseberg: Sexual assault, produce great bodily injury on elderly person, dissuading witness and other charged in two cases, plead guilty to burglary and indecent exposure counts. Sentencing is on July 31.
David Kushner: Kidnapping, oral copulation under the threat of authority, sodomy, rape under color of authority and other charges. Jury trial set for Sept. 4.
Michael Vernal: Assault under the color of authority, destroying evidence. Charges affirmed at preliminary hearing. Heading to trial, no date set.
Antonio Gomez: Assault under the color of authority. Charge reduced to misdemeanor. Case at trial readiness conference stage.
Ronnie Tyrell McPhatter: Felony assault, Assault with a deadly weapon and criminal threats. Preliminary hearing set Aug. 3.
Jeffrey Keith Sanders: Sexual battery, kidnapping, lewd conduct, assault under color of authority and other charges. Awaiting preliminary hearing but no date set.
Mark Steven Barrett: Assault with bodily injury(stabbing). Received nine months house arrest and $44,000 in restitution fine in a plea bargain.
Efrain Santos, jr.: Inflict injury on a child, domestic violence, threats. Charges discharged at preliminary hearing
Angela Carol Parks: Conspiracy to commit solicitation to commit murder, Conspiracy to sell drugs and other charges. Charges affirmed at preliminary hearing and going to trial with no date set.
Would any of these deputies been charged with serious criminal misconduct if there were more video cameras installed? Maybe in some cases like in a enclosed space like a jail or inside of a squad car, but if deputies or any other law enforcement officers want to engage in misconduct, they'll find ways to do it outside of the range of a camera.
Still, it can be a useful tool and some day maybe within the current decade, both the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department will have installed the cameras that the heads of the respective agencies and local governments have promised to provide. Not that it's not entertaining to see the city manager's office in Riverside dance around the issue 10 different ways when asked about it, but it should be done in a more timely fashion than it has been.
The county grand jury is an effective tool for filing complaints. It convenes regularly and investigates complaints involving public agencies within Riverside County. Focus of the complaints are allegations of malfeasance and/or legal actions not carried out in a legal manner.
That still doesn't leave them with much time to investigate complaints if all of them out there were filed. Perhaps, there needs to be two grand juries.
Here's a FAQ on what it does. Here are its most recent reports including this latest one which is the one titled, Riverside County Sheriff's Department-Corrections. If you want to file a complaint with the grand jury, here's an application form.
Before you all line up at once, here's some food for thought. The city of Riverside has been the object of a number of grand jury complaints on everything from its housing of private corporations rent-free in the basement of City Hall, to its hiring practices, to that little alleged incident involving Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis, his gun and the woman outside the video rental store and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department's handling of it.
Not one word, report or even peep back on any of them. Remember the grand jury is sitting under a county agency.
Here's the Early Warning System candidate of the day fresh from San Diego County, courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Two fatal shootings, three other excessive force law suits and some admitted misconduct by one San Diego County Sheriff's Department deputy, Mark Ritchie, all in three years.
Richie even testified that he had once kicked a man who was handcuffed.
Coming under fire is District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis who cleared Ritchie in all of his shootings in addition to clearing five deputies involved in five separate shootings which all took place in the Vista area in 2005.
The State Attorney General's office backed Dumanis' decision in one of Ritchie's shootings, that of Jorge Ramirez, but stated in its ruling that it had disagreed with Dumanis' analysis of the incident.
Ramirez had been shot and then lay on the ground wounded while being shot six more times.
(excerpt)
Ritchie told investigators that after he wounded Ramirez, he shot him six times in the chest to “eliminate” the threat he posed because he feared two other robbers would ambush him from behind, according to an internal sheriff's report on the incident, which was obtained before the attorney general's report by The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Ritchie, who worked in the county jails for more than three years before transferring to patrol duty, still faces legal action for the shooting: Ramirez's parents sued the deputy in federal court on claims of excessive force and wrongful death.
Ramirez's father acknowledges that his son was a gang member and drug addict, but said that does not justify his death.
“I would like to see the cops use less force when they are doing their job,” Benny Ramirez said in a recent interview at his Escondido home. “I can't accept he's dead. I keep thinking he's going to do some time and be home in six months.”
Anther day, another internal investigation involving a Los Angeles Police Department officer, according to the Los Angeles Times. It sounds like a cliche but this unit is very busy.
(excerpt)
LAPD Internal Affairs Cmdr. Jim Voge said an officer is the subject of an investigation for shooting the video, and the matter has been referred to his commanding officer for a disciplinary decision. Voge declined to name the officer or provide further details, citing personnel rules.
In a statement to The Times, Harvey Levin, managing editor of TMZ.com, said the firm does not comment on where it gets its material.
Law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, said the officer told investigators he gave the video shot with a cellphone camera to TMZ because he thought it would be fun. Investigators so far have no evidence that the officer was paid for the video clip, the two sources said, but they are still investigating.
The attornies for Riverside Police Department Officer Ryan Wilson submitted more paperwork in court in relation with Wilson's legal efforts to get the Community Police Review Commission to toss out its sustained finding of excessive force against him on the 2004 shooting of Summer Marie Lane.
It's kind of convoluted in terms of trying to figure out exactly what the legal argument is and it's even more confusing to try to guess why the legal eagles are focusing their attention on the CPRC's public report, which isn't binding, and not addressing its official finding, which is binding, in any way, shape or form. Someone from City Hall needs to explain to them what the difference is between the two. The problem is, everyone, including the plaintiffs and the defendants, is on the same page on this troublesome issue.
That said, Wilson and his attorneys are to be commended for at least keeping their legal arguments and rationale transparent. The city has thus failed to do this so far. While the civil courts have records that the city's attorneys have submitted responsive briefs to Wilson's writ, thus far they have yet to be imagined to facilitate the public's access to them. Even with layoffs in the court clerk's office, the delay is still highly unusual given that the writ is scheduled to be heard at the end of this month.
What's interesting is how the attorneys now are alleging that the CPRC has advocated charging Wilson with either murder or manslaughter charges simply because legal language was used by a police commission which uses legal analysis all the time. In fact, the "exonerated" finding used legal language in that it described an action as "legally justified and proper" before it was changed soon after the Lane case's disposition was released. Apparently, the powers that be at City Hall realized how that put them in a bind.
Still, commissioners deliberate allegations of criminal conduct against officers frequently which requires the use of a legal standard.
Chief Russ Leach was deposed in this case and fought hard for his officer, so if Leach has a high regard for him and he's the one who makes all the decisions then Wilson's in fine stead in his job. Leach did aver that he couldn't send Wilson on a ride along with an NBC reporter because he did not want to hear the end of it.[italics, lawyer's]
That's of course in the same deposition that Leach said he would promote Wilson regardless of public opinion if he fulfilled the qualifications for the position, which weakened Wilson's legal argument though I'm fairly sure that wasn't Leach's intention.
After the CPRC issued its findings, Wilson was assigned to be a POPs officer, a rather prestigious position which puts him front and center in the community where he's assigned at any given time. Before that, he had been assigned to receive SWAT training, again a really prestigious position for an officer to be in who had only been employed by the agency a scant three years.
Even under the remote possibility of Wilson being tracked through the department's Early Warning System, Wilson would still be in excellent stead. A recent study of early warning systems showed that officers being tracked by these systems in their agencies had a slighty increased chance of receiving promotions.
(excerpt, Samuel Walker, Geoffrey P. Alpert, and Dennis J. Kenney, National Institute of Justice, 2001)
One disturbing finding was a slight tendency of early warning officers to be
promoted at higher rates than control officers. This issue should be the
subject of future research, which should attempt to identify more precisely
whether some departments tend to reward through promotion the kind of
active (and possibly aggressive) behavior that is likely to cause officers to
be identified by an early warning system.
It seems that far from what was implied or stated in the deposition and accompanying legal briefs that Wilson's career has flourished instead of languished. It's odd how those who dislike the CPRC flip flop from insisting that it's an irrevelent body, then in the next breath(or legal document) acting like it's lord and master over the police department.
Interesting assumption that Leach would as he said, never hear the end of it, given how many complaints he has heard so far on even the idea that he would consider sending Wilson out with a reporter. How many complaints has Leach ever received about officers being assigned to ridealongs by those who he believes would never let him hear the end of it?
*pin drop*
Labels: corruption 101, officer-involved shootings, public forums in all places, Quid pro quo and other rules
posted by Five Before Midnight | 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home