"Police regularly plant drugs on innocent people"

[sunshine05]

Former NYPD Detective Testifies that Police Regularly Plant Drugs on Innocent People to Meet Arrest Quota




Stephen Anderson, a former NYPD narcotics detective, testified yesterday that he regularly saw police plant drugs on innocent people as a way to meet arrest quotas. Mr. Anderson is testifying under cooperation with prosecutors after he was busted for planting cocaine on four men in a bar in Queens. "It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators," said Anderson.


"One of the consequences of the war on drugs is that police officers are pressured to make large numbers of arrests, and it's easy for some of the less honest cops to plant evidence on innocent people," said Gabriel Sayegh of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The drug war inevitably leads to crooked policing – and quotas further incentivize such practices."

The NYPD has also come under heat recently for arresting more than 50,000 people last year for low-level marijuana offenses – 86% of whom are black and Latino – making marijuana possession the number one offense in the City. Most of these arrests are the result of illegal searches by the NYPD, as part of its controversial stop-and-frisk practices. Marijuana was decriminalized in New York State in 1977 – and that law is still on the books. Smoking marijuana in public or having marijuana visible in public, however, remains a crime. Most people arrested for marijuana possession are not smoking in public, but simply have a small amount in their pocket, purse or bag. Often when police stop and question a person, they say "empty your pockets" or "open your bag." Many people comply, even though they're not legally required to do so. If a person pulls mari¬juana from their pocket or bag, it is then "open to public view." The police then arrest the person.


Last month, in a rare admission of NYPD wrongdoing, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly ordered all officers to stop charging people with misdemeanor marijuana violations based on improper searches. The new policy directive comes on the heels of a 2011 report released by DPA highlighting the enormous costs of marijuana arrests in New York and a public pressure campaign by advocacy groups and elected officials.


"Whether the issue is planting drugs (like this instance) or falsely charging people for having marijuana in public view (as is the case with the majority of marijuana arrests in NYC) the drug war corrupts police, ruins lives, and destroys trust between law enforcement and the communities that they serve," said Sayegh.


http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2011/10/former-nypd-detective-testifies-police-regularly-plant-drugs-innocent-people-meet-arres

[palani]

When they bring a drug sniffing dog to your car and the policy man handling the dog sticks his hand in his pocket before touching your trunk good chance he is leaving some drug smell for the dog to "hit" on.

If you see someone do this arrest them on the spot for tampering with evidence.

[Twisted Titan]

Every one of those pigs should be drawn and quartered, have their bowels disengored and their sorid carcasses attached to the nearest light post for the carion to feed upon.

do you know how many lives were ruined so this effing pig could get his weekly paycheck?

do you how many people can't get a job because they wont pass a background check?

[Glass]

Just so we're clear. This is not planting evidence... or is it?.......this happens everywhere. This guy did this for 25 years. His whole career.


Police errors cast doubt on convictions
MANY hundreds - and possibly thousands - of defendants may have been wrongly convicted of serious criminal offences after numerous senior Victoria Police investigators admitted they had made unsworn affidavits.

A policeman with almost 25 years' experience has confessed to a judge he had never sworn on a Bible or affirmed his word - basic legal requirements - in obtaining hundreds of search warrants by affidavit.

Detective Senior Sergeant Stephen McIntyre told a County Court pre-trial hearing the ''only practice I've ever seen in Victoria Police'' has been to sign a name and have it witnessed.

He said the practice related to ''every warrant I've ever been involved in from memory'' and added: ''I can't recall an instance in my career where this hasn't occurred.''

Asked about the word ''sworn'', Senior Sergeant McIntyre said the process he always accepted was that by signing the document, ''I was accepting the truthfulness of the document and the contents of the document, and that would suffice''.

After his evidence, the judge, who cannot be named for legal reasons, remarked: ''I'm just thinking how many appeals are now going to be launched upon new evidence being discovered.''

When prosecutor Nick Papas, SC, conceded the affidavit supporting the search warrant of one premises was not sworn under oath, the judge ruled that its entry was not authorised and was a trespass.

''The non-swearing of the affidavit constitutes conduct which is clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards of acceptable police conduct in all the circumstances,'' he said. The judge asked that a high-ranking officer explain how such a practice had evolved and yesterday Superintendent Brett Guerin told him it had ''inadvertently crept in''.

Superintendent Guerin said that after learning of Senior Sergeant McIntyre's proposed evidence, he walked through the crime department - which houses about 560 officers in specialist crime squads - and about 25 detectives told him they followed the same process.

[B]He told defence barrister Luke Barker he did ''not necessarily'' regard officers who obtained warrants without properly sworn affidavits as acting negligently or carelessly in discharge of their duty.

Asked by Mr Barker what was the qualifier, he replied: ''Their state of mind''. ''If they believed that they were dealing with the right thing, that they believed that by signing the affidavit in the presence of a sergeant or above was legally binding on them, I don't believe it would be reckless.''

Superintendent Guerin said the practice had apparently developed over time ''where a lot of officers do not swear an affidavit, they sign it, it's witnessed, they believe they're fulfilling the requirements of the law.''

He revealed last Friday that every member of and above the rank of inspector was reminded of the requirements in swearing affidavits. The hearing resumes tomorrow.
From the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-errors-cast-doubt-on-convictions-20111004-1l7da.html)

Perverting the course of Justice anyone?

[Glass]

palani I think you ill will like this one:


Judge: police using corporate speak
A JUDGE has dismissed as ''corporate speak'' Victoria Police explanation that poor work practices were responsible for many investigators breaching basic legal principles by making unsworn affidavits.

A detective with almost 25 years' experience admitted he had never sworn on a Bible or affirmed his word in obtaining hundreds of search warrants by affidavit. Following that admission, another senior officer testified that about 25 detectives with the crime department - which houses about 560 officers in specialist crime squads - had revealed they acted the same way.

Lawyers have expressed outrage at the disclosures, which could mean thousands of defendants may have been wrongly convicted and may now launch appeals.

The County Court judge, who cannot be named for legal reasons, ruled invalid two search warrants issued under one unsworn affidavit.

''The non-swearing of the affidavit constitutes conduct which is clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards of acceptable police conduct in all the circumstances,'' he said.

Acting superintendent Mick Hermans said yesterday he first learned of the ''confusion'' when he read Wednesday's front-page story in The Age. He testified that in response it was decided training notes for recruits about swearing documents were deficient and that stricter wording for affidavits be introduced for authorised officers.

He denied the suggestion that ''familiarity breeds contempt'', and instead said that ''common error makes right'' because if a procedural deficiency crept in it ''becomes so common that people actually believe it's the right process''.
Full story and Deputy Commissioners excuses @ the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/judge-police-using-corporate-speak-20111006-1lbrq.html)

[Hatha Sunahara]

For as long as he was it's chief, J Edgar Hoover refused to get the FBI into enforcing drug laws. He said that drug enforcement would corrupt the FBI so it would be ineffective in everything else it does. There's no shortage of evidence that he made an accurate assessment of this corrupt area of the law.


Hatha

[Santa]

For as long as he was it's chief, J Edgar Hoover refused to get the FBI into enforcing drug laws. He said that drug enforcement would corrupt the FBI so it would be ineffective in everything else it does. There's no shortage of evidence that he made an accurate assessment of this corrupt area of the law.


HathaBesides, the International CIA had that angle covered.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I see so many cases of individuals standing in dishonor in this society.

[undgrd]

I just want to point out that everyone is buying this story, told by a former cop, who just got busted for planting evidence.

Think he's got a reason to tell the DA what they want to hear?

[po boy]

Every one of those pigs should be drawn and quartered, have their bowels disengored and their sorid carcasses attached to the nearest light post for the carion to feed upon.

do you know how many lives were ruined so this effing pig could get his weekly paycheck?

do you how many people can't get a job because they wont pass a background check?

I know that what you say is true TA however it would make us no better than the criminals.

[iOWNme]

Again, the REAL issue is never addressed. PRIVATE PROPERTY.

If i have the right to put into my own body (Private Temple) anything i want, then i dont really care what a Kop 'plants' on me. Get the picture?

It is only because we live under absolute Despotism and Tyranny, that 'Drug Laws' even exist. There is no injured party, no crime has been committed and there is no victim. If someone is selling something, and another wants to buy it, how can a crime have been committed? Unless it was 'stolen property'.

I OWN my body, and therefore i will decide what goes in it. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks differently is a STATIST.

[po boy]

The only thing is we or the mass majority don't even own them/ourselves.

[Twisted Titan]

I know that what you say is true TA however it would make us no better than the criminals.



Nah man ...........

Im not buying into that noooooooooooooooooooo more.


If punishments like that were carried out corruption would fall off a cliff as most would surmise the risk is not worth the reward.

You would only have a small tiny faction that would be crazy enough to attempt it and there impact would be limited as the overwhemling majority would be kept in line.

Destroying a man for profit is a henious crime and it replicates it self with astounding speed in a short period of time.

The punishment MUST be severe because the OFFENSE was .


History has shown everytime time we have rendered mercy to the corrupt .......the enemy was able to regroup or inspire others to carry out their malice in like kind and it is we or our childeren down line who suffer the consequences living under the yoke of these bastards.

I have had enough that.

If i ever catch a striking viper ........... you had better believe im going to crush its head and break its fangs in twain so i dont have to worry about THAT viper no more.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The 'War on Drugs' was used initially to strip us of our constitutional rights. The reason it is called a 'war' is for the express purpose of suspending our constitutional protections from the government. A 'unitary executive' can do that in time of war.

This gave rise to 'asset forfeitures' which is legalized theft by the government.

We saw an escalation of this lawless behavior by the government when they announced the "War on Terror'. Here they suspended all our constitutional protections and turned America into a totalitarian dictatorship. The president has assumed the power to deprive people of their lives without due process. How many people see that this will lead to wholesale murder of Americans by the government? Just like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else they feel like it.

Planting drugs on innocent people is a great example of what Stanley Milgram described of what people are capable of doing if they are given authority to do so, and have accountability removed. You see it everywhere in government and corporate organizations. You see it in police looting of the public by enforcing a whole lot of laws that do not need to be laws, and are all related to the corruption that exists among the unaccountable wielders of power over us all. This is the bottom line of why America is doomed to disintegrate--because the whole idea of 'integrity' has been recast to mean 'legalized criminal behavior'. Even Obama tells us that the Banksters have not been prosecuted because they have done nothing illegal--albeit what they did may have been improper or immoral--it was not illegal. Only the little people do illegal things--because there are laws against just about everything you do. And jails to put you in when you get 'caught'. The whole structure of the law and politics and the economy and the money system is so rotten, it cannot stand for much longer.

When it falls on its ass from its corruption, I'll be celebrating. I'm sure I'll be in good company.


Hatha

[Joe King]

Planting drugs on innocent people is a great example of what Stanley Milgram described of what people are capable of doing if they are given authority to do so, and have accountability removed.
That's not what Milgram showed at all. What Milgram showed with his experiments is that the vast majority of people look to those in positions of authority for their moral guidance.

[Hatha Sunahara]

That's not what Milgram showed at all. What Milgram showed with his experiments is that the vast majority of people look to those in positions of authority for their moral guidance.


Isn't that what the cops are doing? When their superiors give them quotas for arrests? They look to their superiors for moral authority in corrupt behavior.



Hatha

[Joe King]

Isn't that what the cops are doing? When their superiors give them quotas for arrests? They look to their superiors for moral authority in corrupt behavior.



HathaI was looking at the cop being the "authority figure" and the poor schmucks he deals with as being the subjects relative to the experiment.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I was looking at the cop being the "authority figure" and the poor schmucks he deals with as being the subjects relative to the experiment.

The people the cops victimize are the people who were being shocked in Milgram's experiments. They're the victims of the 'law'. The unwashed masses who don't know how the bullies play their games.


Hatha

[Joe King]

The people the cops victimize are the people who were being shocked in Milgram's experiments. They're the victims of the 'law'. The unwashed masses who don't know how the bullies play their games.


HathaI see the majority of the unwashed masses as the ones loooking to authority figures for their guidance, because that's how it works. ie the authoritys are telling people to keep pushing the button and they do. The 30% who would question it and refuse are those like you and I who know better.
It's what keeps the whole power structure in place. Compliance without question by the majority.

[po boy]

Nah man ...........

Im not buying into that noooooooooooooooooooo more.


If punishments like that were carried out corruption would fall off a cliff as most would surmise the risk is not worth the reward.

You would only have a small tiny faction that would be crazy enough to attempt it and there impact would be limited as the overwhemling majority would be kept in line.

Destroying a man for profit is a henious crime and it replicates it self with astounding speed in a short period of time.

The punishment MUST be severe because the OFFENSE was .


History has shown everytime time we have rendered mercy to the corrupt .......the enemy was able to regroup or inspire others to carry out their malice in like kind and it is we or our childeren down line who suffer the consequences living under the yoke of these bastards.

I have had enough that.

If i ever catch a striking viper ........... you had better believe im going to crush its head and break its fangs in twain so i dont have to worry about THAT viper no more.

I'd like to be there with you but a little saying prevents me from doing so "let he without sin cast the first stone".