The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

Ex-officers sue over release of confidential information
By Amina Khan contact the reporter

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Ex-Office of Public Safety officials sue L.A. County Sheriff's Department over release of confidential files

A group of former officers from a defunct Los Angeles County police organization has filed a lawsuit accusing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of leaking confidential information to the Los Angeles Times.
lRelated Teen stabbed to death at East L.A. middle school

L.A. Now
Teen stabbed to death at East L.A. middle school

See all related
8

The 12-page lawsuit filed by 44 former Office of Public Safety officials centers around a series of Times articles reporting that the Sheriff’s Department had hired employees with a history of misconduct.
cComments

Ridiculous law suite. They are not entitled to any privacy when there is egregious behavior in their records. They are public servants.
SteveLandry
at 5:50 AM January 25, 2015

Add a comment See all comments
13

After the little-known Office of Public Safety was dissolved in 2010, officers were allowed to transfer to the Sheriff’s Department. But the 280 officers picked included a number of problematic hires, such as employees who had had sex at work, solicited prostitutes or had accidentally fired their weapons, according to The Times report.

Records showed that for nearly 100 hires, investigators found evidence of dishonesty, such as falsifying police records; and nearly 200 had been rejected from other agencies for issues such as past misconduct and failed entrance exams, according to the report.

The lawsuit accuses sheriff’s officials of leaking confidential information to The Times -- information that it says would have included criminal records, medical and psychological histories, and information from polygraph exams, along with other data.

Among the plaintiffs are several officers named in the first Times story published Dec. 1, 2013: Linda Bonner, David McDonald, Niles Rose and Ferdinand Salgado.

The lawsuit also alleges that the former Office of Public Safety officers who were hired were widely viewed with contempt.

“It was universally recognized that former OPS officers, including plaintiffs herein, were considered as the pariah of law enforcement in Southern California,” the lawsuit says. “Statements such as ‘the OPS is comprised of cooks and bottle washers’ were widespread and epidemic.”

This attitude, the lawsuit asserts, is what would have compelled sheriff’s officials to disclose confidential information to The Times.

The sheriff’s officers “believed they had a reason to publicly embarrass and humiliate former OPS officers, including plaintiffs herein, by disclosing to the public the aforesaid private and confidential information to justify their actions and to paint them as unworthy of law enforcement positions" with the Sheriff's Department, the lawsuit alleges.

Contacted late Friday evening, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Nicole Nishida said the department had not yet reviewed the lawsuit.

San Francisco police officer faces prison for unlawful searches

SF police officer convicted for illegal hotel room search
A federal jury convicted a veteran San Francisco police officer Thursday of violating a tenant's civil rights by illegally searching her hotel room.
By Joseph Serna contact the reporter

Crime

A San Francisco police officer has been convicted of conducting searches and seizures without warrants
Convicted San Francisco police officer lied about how searches that led to arrests were done

A San Francisco police officer could be sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in April after he was convicted of searching suspects' apartments without a warrant and falsifying documents to justify it later.
lRelated Police appear to try to tip man out of his wheelchair in video

L.A. Now
Police appear to try to tip man out of his wheelchair in video

See all related
8

On Thursday, a federal jury in San Francisco reached a unanimous verdict and convicted Officer Arshad Razzak of conspiracy to violate a person’s civil rights, deprivation of rights, and two counts of falsifying records.

He’s scheduled to be sentenced April 28. A second officer on trial with Razzak was acquitted of all charges.
Hotel surveillance video
Surveillance video from the Henry Hotel reveals that San Francisco Police Department narcotics officers falsified police reports in order to justify searching residences without warrants or consent.

In December 2010, Razzak and other officers acted on an informant’s tip and crowded into a narrow hallway in front of an apartment in the Henry Hotel in downtown San Francisco. According to documents Razzak filed later, he and the other officers knocked on the door and when they didn’t get a response, used a master key to slightly open the door and announced they were going to get a warrant to go inside. Razzak reported that a woman inside then gave him and the officers consent to enter, where drugs were found and a man was arrested.
cComments

Drug users repeatedly commit crimes that degrade the quality of life in our communities. They break into our houses and into our cars, they shoplift, hold-up stores, snatch purses,cellphones and anything else to make a buck and get high again. Still, cops should understand that arresting...
Ironic Amputee
at 11:55 AM January 24, 2015

Add a comment See all comments
29

But authorities said the real version of events was very different.

Razzak and the officers used a master key and barged in without a warrant and made arrests, prosecutors said. Weeks later, Razzak was again doing warrantless searches and seizures, they said.

In a hotel security camera video released by the San Francisco Public Defender’s office, Razzak and other officers are seen surrounding a woman in the crowded Henry Hotel hallway in another incident in January 2011. One officer shields a few seconds of the interaction by blocking the camera with his hand. The officers then made the woman open the door and arrested a man inside who was on probation. Heroin was found too.

After the video was seen by a judge, the charges against the man were dropped.

A federal investigation was launched and Razzak was eventually charged.

“There is no place in the San Francisco Police Department — and shouldn’t be in any department — for a dishonest cop,” police Chief Greg Suhr said in a statement.

Suhr said the department was seeking to immediately terminate Razzak to limit his accumulation of pension benefits. The acquitted officer will be reinstated to patrol duty pending the police department's own administrative investigation, officials said.

For breaking California news, follow @JosephSerna.

What a dumb ass. No one is going to sue Wilson. Ever heard of the deep pocket theory? Of couse not...cuz you're an idiot.

You're a LIAR
Show me where I ever said that Frank. You always attack people who are not exactly correct in everything they post...your turn.

No...I am not a liar. You are being hysterical. Get control...don't look foolish.




First show me where I said you said it.

I didn't say that. I said ...who apparently feel that cops..."...and a lot of what you write indicates to me that you apparently feel that way.

You really are not that good at this, John.

Oh bullshit Frank...dont play reindeer games...it's the mark of the desperate who's feet are being held to the fire.

You're hiding behind the word "apparently"? Ok Frank....APPARENTLY YOU ARE A ******* LIAR.

I don't hide behind words, John. I choose them carefully to convey what I actually mean. When I use the word "apparently"...it is for a reason. I cannot say definitively that you feel cops should be able to do anything they want...

...but you certainly give that impression. So my use of the word "apparently" is appropriate and warranted. That is something a person with above average intelligence such as you apparently think you have...should understand.



I am not a liar...

...and you apparently have almost no class.

Bullshit Frank...I calls as I sees 'em. You are being a weasel using weasel words...I blind man without a cane can see it an everyone knows EXACTLY what you mean...no class? Well i can say one thing for sure...you dont seem to have the courage of your convictions. Dont be a weasel tell us how you really feel. You sound like some slimy politician. You running for some a2k office I am unaware of?

I'm pretty sure that the city will pay all damages from any lawsuit against him, so the pockets are likely deep enough.

But based on the evidence available so far, I wouldn't expect there to be any damages awarded.

No...I am a guy who doesn't brag about being intelligent. But I know how to use words with precision...which you most assuredly do not.



I would hope so. I speak very clearly. You ought to give it a try.




You are displaying none. Either you have none...or you hide it very nicely.




I will be here defending my convictions for as long as it takes. If you think I do not defend them...you are sadly mistaken.




I never am a weasel, John, but perhaps this will be clear enough: I really feel that you ought to get control of temper...and stop making a fool of yourself.

Anything else?

They wont sue Wilson they will sue the city.

Oh Frank...desperately trying to assign "temper" to my post just reinforces the weasel accusation.

If you think this is over you're dumber than you seem, which is quite an accomplishment, because you are stone stupid. Also a bag of **** blowhard. Even your mother thinks so. Ask me how I know.

You make that statement over and over and over when you claim cops don't screw up.

I cannot believe you speak that way about Frank Apisa who without a doubt is the most rational and polite people on this site. That you can react this way to anything he's ever said on this thread only puts the truth on all your little lies and makes your denial on accusations about your attitude about cops ring hollow. All cops are good all the time? Thats as big a piece of bunk as all cops screw up all the time. Like I've said, you treat this thread as an all or nothing proposition regarding cop behaviors. And it makes it easier to refute what few points you make buried in your abysmal behavior towards others you disagree with. You sound like one one of those minority of misbehaving cops full of themselves. Shame the **** on you. You represent all thats wrong with law enforcement that itself is dangerous to cops and the public perception of cops.

Calls em as you sees them certainly doesn't mean you've got a grip on any sort of reality. At any rate your self endorsement doesn't make you any less full of horse ****.

Distinction without difference, moron. The city will be sued for Wilson's mis-actions. I hope he spends his way through his half mil and works third shift as a mall guard.

John, you are allowing anger and frustration to make you act more and more childishly.

Get a grip.

Or...continue to provide laughs for the people who are adults.

Ok this is not a race war, at all. There are ignorant people on every side of this equation. Cops come in all colors and so do stupid people, and so do stupid cops. The problem is that it is a racially charged debate because MANY people, including myself, think that race had something to do with cases like wilson's. That goes for the people who think that Wilson was not charged because he is white, and the people who think this is only a big deal because brown was not. The actual subject is about whether the cop was right or wrong to do what he did. It now turned into cops in general I guess. I still think that most cases cops are out doing the right things and we should always give them higher regard than any color criminals they are forced to deal with, especially those resisting arrest.

The Supreme Court Allowed A Man To Be Executed, Then They Took His Case
Source: Think Progress

Just over a week ago, the Supreme Court denied a stay of execution to an Oklahoma inmate named Charles Warner over the dissent of the Court’s four more liberal members. According to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, the drug cocktail that Oklahoma planned to use on Warner was too likely to result in the “needless infliction of severe pain” to be permissible under the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Sotomayor, however, only garnered four votes for her position, and she needed five to halt the execution.

Nevertheless, on Friday, just over a week after Warner received a fatal dose of the poisonous cocktail Sotomayor criticized in her opinion, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Warner’s case after all.

Under normal circumstances, Warner’s death would moot his case. Subject only to narrow exceptions, the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over cases where a decision in a particularly party’s favor is likely to redress an injury that party experienced. And the justices only have the power to destroy life. They do not have the power to resurrect the dead.

Warner, however, is one of four death row inmates who challenged the use of a potentially unreliable sedative that may allow inmates to experience considerable pain during their executions. The other three, at least as of this writing, are still alive.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/26/3615214/supreme-court-allows-oklahoma-execute-man-decide-take-case/