[bhayne]

I was arrested on false information. I wrote down all the arrest details and the interrogation video was recovered. I hired a good lawyer and the charges were dismissed. Then I filed a complaint against the arresting officers and gave a 4 hour tape-recorded deposition. In my tape-recorded deposition, the investigating officer was trying to justify the arresting officers' actions. In the end, I said that I was willing to negotiate on Details 1 to 3 but Detail 4 stays (attached below). I said that Detail 1 to 3 is just to demonstrate the arresting officers' state-of mind. A criminal investigation against the officers ensued.

The deposition occurred in Feb 2006 and every 45 days I get a letter saying that the investigation is not yet complete. I did pay $3000 for a high profile lawyer. Can I claim this and what happens next?

1) Detail: While the complainant was sitting down in peaceful assembly, the officer persuaded the complainant to stand and then attacked and tackled the complainant without any provocation. The area of the attack was a high secure area and even though the officer’s side arm was completely exposed, the complainant offered no resistance.

Code of professional conduct: unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority 5(2)(I)(ii)

Criminal Code: 265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.


2) Detail: The officer failed to recognize that the complainant was extremely tired and placed complainant in isolation holding cell after tightening the handcuffs. The complainant could not sleep with the handcuffs cutting into the wrists so complainant went out of camera view after being in isolation for 15-30 minutes. The officer entered to check on the complainant and initially refused complainant’s request to remove handcuffs. The officer only then removed the handcuffs after the complainant repeated this behavior. After removing the handcuffs, the officer gave the complainant his legal rights to an attorney. The complainant did not show any anger at any time.

Code of professional conduct: unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority 5(2)(I)(I), 5(2)(I)(ii)
discreditable conduct 5(2)(e)(vi)

Criminal Code: 269.1 (1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.


3) Detail: The complainant’s rights were not given in a timely manner although the complainant’s demeanor never changed from being ‘relaxed’ throughout the entire incident. The arresting officer’s demeanor was highly stressed and increased when the complainant advised both the officers of their rights and told them that they were ‘bad cops’.

Code of professional conduct: neglect of duty 5(2)(h)(I)


4) Detail: The officer quoted the complainant as saying specific obscene language that the complainant overheard through the holding cell door while trying to rest. When the complainant confronted the officer and told the officer, “I do not swear”, the officer admitted that he heard the complainant say no swear word (the direct opposite that he had said minutes before). The complainant has a disability, that, when extremely tired, slows his speech and may sound intoxicated (because the complainant must think of each word before his speaks). After the officer learns that the complainant is not intoxicated, is a registered professional engineer and is incapable of speaking from emotion, the officer fabricates a charge before releasing the complainant. The officer charged the complainant with direct proof that is contrary to the charge.

Code of professional conduct: deceit 5(2)(d)(I), 5(2)(d)(ii)
Discreditable conduct 5(2)(e)(vii) differentially applying the law or exercising authority on the basis of physical disability;

Criminal Code: 122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

[ScottGem]

Claim the attorney fees how?

As to what happens next, you wait for the investigating body to complete their investigation and issue a determination. If they decline to criminally prosecute, then you must either file a civil suit or go to a higher authority to prosecute.

You do not say what proof you have of the details. So I can't say what chances you have.

[bhayne]

I guess that I was lucky. There were a few witnesses and it was in an airport so each person would have a different story if they lie.

Also, I have the tape recording that shows my demeanor and the notes that I wrote while I was being detained in the holding cell. I was hoping that the tape recording caught the officer fabricating the story (I heard it so the camera should have heard it). I was told by the investigating officer that those cameras are not used for evidence and most do not record voice).

Then, there is my deposition.

Then, there was a young cop that I must've really scared when I told him he was a bad cop. Scared so much he forgot to read me my rights. He probably realized I was important after he said, "You have the right to remain silent."
I replied, "Take me seriously, it is you that have the right to remain silent. You are bad cops." He didn't say anything after that.

He was not the arresting cop but apparently he became truthful when the investigating officer interrogated him.

Then there is the arresting officer's failure to sit down and discuss the arrest in with me and an arbitrator.

Finally, there is my accident report that says, "bhayne has sustained very serious head injuries. He has a flat response to emotion. He is an excellent example of the compensory mechanisms that one is able to rely on and stands in sharp contrast to those who's minimal injuries evoke maximal complaints. Although his speach slows and his gait is not as steady when he is fatigued, I believe this to be brain stem in origin and there is little gain in pursuing this further." Neurologist's report.

[ScottGem]

There is a lot of misconception about being "Mirandized". First, officers are not required to Mirandize you until you are actually placed under arrest. Until then there is no requirement. Second, not being mirandized simply means that any admissions or statements you make prior to being mirandized cannot be used against you at trial. So if say I killed Christopher Robin, it cannot be mentioned at trial unless you were read your rights first. So if the arresting officer did not read you your rights, that is not a criminal violation. Its simply a lapse of procedure and affects ONLY the prosecution of your case. It MIGHT result in disciplinary action against the officer or not.

The interrogation video (whihc you said has not sound?) has no bearing other then to show how you were treated. If there is no evidence of abuse on it, it may have little probitive value.

I notice that you don't, at any time, mention what you were arrested for. However, if you have witnesses that you were sitting peacefully, that you were ordered to stand and did so without resistance and were then tackled without provocation, you should have a decent civil case.

The inconsistencies in the testimony of the officers involved help attack their credibility, but I don't know that it proves abuse. I think the real key to whether or how much the officers overstepped is the nature of the charge and why you were targeted.

[bhayne]

As you have said, there is no criminal case for not giving your rights in a timely manner. As such, I have only charged them with professional misconduct for not giving me the rights.

As I said in the deposition, when the officer persuaded me to stand up and then tackled me back into my seat to put me in an armlock, he did not hurt me. I said my 6-year-old daughter has hurt me more. However, while he was on top of me reaching for my right hand, my left hand was rubbing against his side arm. I noticed that it was a toy spay painted black (I was thinking, "go figure, only in Canada would they outfit cops with toys")!

I have been told that the young cop spilled the beans and was a truthful witness. I just hope the investigating officer is reliable because the people he's investigating are co-workers! Anyhow, any thoughts on my lawyer fee of $3000?

P.S. Even though I wasn't Mirandized, I still wouldn't say, "I killed Christopher Robin"!

[ScottGem]

What about it? If you sue for false arrest you should be able to recoup costs.

[bhayne]

I was arrested for swearing in a public place. At least that's what the arrest said. I believe they initially arrested me for drunkness but fabricated the story of 'swearing' when discovering I was not drunk>

[Fr_Chuck]

As stated, if they had enough evidence, you can be arrested, tried and convicted without ever hearing your "rights" The Miranda rights only have to be given before you are questioned, not when you are arrested.

Also officers often go by testomony of others when they come to questin you. Also the witnesses you have, can you bring them to court to testify for you ? Will they show up. And you can be arrested for drunkenness ( or at least taken into custody) pending a blood alcohol test if they believe you are drunk

Next you tell cops the "rights" and call them bad cops, honestly you are lucky not to be still in jail lost in paper work somewhere. And believe me when you start trying to sue, officers will stick together against you very quicly and you may well find the charges recharged after the review of the evidence, that is common to happen.

You were arrested, most likley on good grounds, or a mistake, you were taken in, questioned and released, it happens,

Making a case is pure BS for people to do when a mistake happens in good faith.

[bhayne]

There must be a lot of 'bad cops' out there. I believe that it is really easy for a cop to cover their mistake when they are surrounded by their friends (other cops), but once exposed, they scatter. The young cop is the leak and soon the truth will pour out.

In our society, a mistake can happen such as mistaken a handicap for drunkenness. I have noted that on rare occations when I am fatiqued, I have been questioned for intoxication. A quick explanation and no scent of alcohol has always been sufficient. This did not happen- the officer jumped to conclusions based on their observation. The officer fabricated evidence (telling his seniors on the telephone that the one in custody was saying, "F***this and F***that" thinking that I am drunk) to inflate his arrest. This simply did not happen and I feel obliged to remove this officer and his subordinate.

As you state, they will team together. However, the investigation has been on-going for 6 months now and I'm not the one having any problem sleeping!

[ScottGem]

Things have changed a lot in police departments. In days of you're, the cop on the corner was looked at with respect. People were friendly. Nowadays, people shy away. There's a lot of reasons, good and bad for that. But its caused cops to become more cliqish and close ranks to protect their own. Cops tend to feel that they are heavily exposed (which they are) so they tend to close ranks.

That being said, from your account, there really isn't much excuse. The cop did not try to determine the facts before acting, then tried to fabricate info to coverup his mistake.

But I caution you with taking it too far. If you try to get the cop removed from his job, the rest of the force may resent it. I would suggest you settlr for a public apology and disciplinary action and reimbursement of expenses.

[Fr_Chuck]

First please understand the other officers will not believe you, over the other officer, and most courts will not either if that officer has a good record with them.

And cops get charged with all sorts of things everyday and almost all is false, so they get used to be accused of everything and believe people are out to get them.

For those that don't know me, I have a black wife and lived in the middle of the "hood" in Atlanta for many years where I was a police officer.

I was "charged" or accused of racism 4 times, because it was the cry of any black person arrested if they wanted to get off. I was lucky because my boses knew that I did not have a racist bone in my body, I even testified against the department in a race discrimination suit.

So no charge against me ever had any basis of fact but it did not stop them from making them. On the average any medium size department will have at least 3 or 4 people accusing the officers of something every day. And about 99 percent are found to have no merit,

And believe me, officers do stick together because they believe these people are attaacking one of their own with these types of charges.
I will say that they are keep a close person of interest on all things they do for a while.

Do you realise how many minor traffic laws there are, in GA for example, no stickers in the back windows, nothing hanging from your rear view mirror, using turn signal 100 ft before your turn we figured one day that 2 out of 3 cars had some violation in them ( we study that to give us probable cause for a traffic stop)

I am just saying there is often two sides to every story and then the truth of what really happened, I would like to know the other two on this before any judgement is rendered.

If the officer was wrong, at this point he will have gotten his supervisors attention, further action from you at this point will most likely make them close ranks and less will happen to him than would.

And officers have long memories of things like this, often when a person was stopped for some reason in the future, I may get a call on my cell phone telling me this person had done this or that to this officer in the past, or got off because he was related to someone.

I am just saying that even a guilty person can get a minor charge like yours dismissed with a high power attorney, a DA does not want to spend too much time and money on a minor charge, and will dismiss a guilty person if the case is going to be too much trouble for them.

But make the case a lot more important, things can change.

[bhayne]

I will not forget the exact moment when the cop embellished his arrest to the point of fabricating evidence.

If you have ever been framed; it is like a spear going through you; you don't forget. Perhaps that is why there is such harsh penalties- and rightfully so. He is a cop. What's that take; about a couple of years of training. I am a distinguished professional. What's that take; about a couple of decades of training.

Yes, I believe whenever a person of authority confronts someone, they should believe that they are putting their reputation and job on the line. In this case his own ego will cost him his job and hopefully his own peers will put him behind bars.

As for the younger one, the shame of losing his job will be satisfactory.

The $3000 is just a drop in the bucket. Actually, my company paid for it anyway.

[ScottGem]

You never made a mistake in your life and tried to cover it up? Do you have any conception of what a cop goes through day in and day out putting their life on the line to protect YOU? Never knowing, when they walk out of their homes if they will see their families again?

I really think you need to cut these officers some slack here. Yes they should be disciplined. Yes, a lesson needs to be taught to inhibt this from happening again. Yes, you should be apologized to. But do you really want to ruin someone's life because you were embarrassed? Do you really want to run the risk of having the police retaliate against you for a pursuing this to that degree?

[bhayne]

I've made tons of mistakes and I've seen tons of mistakes made and covered up.

However, I do not hurt others because of a mistake.

The only person that I ever hurt from my mistakes was myself. It's called responsibility.

If your not responsible, you don't deserve a responsible position. Let me remind you that this cop was carrying a toy gun. I see little that he could do to protect me even if he wanted to. And if it was a real gun, he put the whole airport at risk by exposing it to my free hand after tacking me back in my seat. BTW, at that time the younger cop was busy admiring his bicycle and not looking at us.

[excon]

Hello bhayne:

What comes next?? Hopefully they admit their wrongdoing and compensate you. However, cops will NEVER admit that.

Yes, cops have it rough. But they carry a gun, and their buddies are no more than a minute away. Plus, they have the power to put someone away for a long time, if they have a mind to - and some do.

Yes, it's a shame that the good cops get brushed with the stench of the bad ones. Bummer! But they knew that going in. That IS the job they signed up for. Yes, I'll call them if somebody is robbing me. But no, you'll get no sympathy about them from me.

Nope! They are not excused for doing a BAD thing (even if it's the only bad thing they ever did) because of the hundreds of good things they do! Go get 'em, bhayne, and get 'em hard!

Message for Scott: Being attacked, handcuffed, falsely charged (someone trying to ruin HIS life), and thrown into the slam is a little bit more than just embarrassing. Furthermore, you admit the police retaliate. A good police force would never do that. Maybe, if people like bahyne slammed the cops hard for their indiscretions (I call for mandatory minimums!), they might learn who's in charge.

However, when people are counseled to lay down for the cops, even in (or especially in) the face of their bad behavior, the cops know WHO'S really in charge.

excon