A Pitchess motion is where you as the defendant seek to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel record for evidence of police misconduct. Defense attorneys typically bring a Pitchess motion when they suspect officers may have acted improperly, such as by filing a false police report or using excessive force.

California Senate Bill 1421 was signed into law in September 2018. This new law makes a Pitchess motion unnecessary for some types of information requests.

Under SB 1421, four types of police records are now open for public inspection. These records pertain to the situations when:

1. An officer shoots his gun at a person;
2. An officer uses force against another person and the result is death or great bodily injury;
3. There is a prior finding that an officer committed a sexual assault; and,
4. An officer commits a dishonest act (such as perjury or filing a false report).

After Senate Bill 1421, Pitchess motions are still relevant if:

• You seek information from an officer’s personnel file; and,
• That information is not authorized for inspection under SB 1421.

Examples of information you may seek that is not covered within SB 1421 may include:

• Records that show that an officer racially profiled; or,
• Records that show that an officer coerced a confession; or
• Records show other prejudicial acts or the falsification of evidence/testimony.

In accordance with Pitchess motions procedures and standards, a Pitchess motion must include:

1. A description of the type of records or information you seek; and,
2. A showing of “good cause” for the records’ release.

If the judge decides that a Pitchess motion shows “good cause” for disclosing an officer’s personnel records, the judge holds a private “in camera” hearing to decide which records are relevant to the case.

1. When can I gain access to police personnel files?

A strong defense to some criminal accusations is to show that a police officer committed misconduct against you. Some forms of misconduct are when officers:

• Use excessive force,
• Racially profile,
• Coerce confessions,
• Lie in a police report, and
• Plant evidence.

In misconduct cases, police records – in particular an officer’s personnel file – are relevant evidence because they allow you to see if the arresting officer in your case committed some type of misconduct in past cases. A showing of any type of pattern of misconduct would be critical to build an effective defense.

Under California law, you can attempt to obtain information from an officer’s personnel file by either:

1. Requesting this information pursuant to SB 1421; or,
2. Filing a Pitchess motion with the court.¹

2. What has been the effect of Senate Bill 1421?

California Senate Bill 1421 does four important things:

1. Makes certain police records open to public inspection;
2. Specifies what types of “records” are eligible for release;
3. Provides instructions on redacting certain information; and,
4. Prohibits disclosure of information in an officer’s personnel file in other cases.

2.1. Types of records open to public inspection

Under SB 1421, there are four types of personnel records that are open to public inspection. These are:

1. Records relating to an incident, or investigation, involving a police officer shooting his gun at a person;
2. A record relating to an incident, or investigation, involving a police officer using force against a person, and the result is death or great bodily injury;
3. Records relating to an incident in which there was a finding that a police officer engaged in sexual assault; and,
4. Records relating to an incident where there was a finding that an officer acted dishonestly.²

As to the fourth category of records, dishonest acts may include:

• Perjury;
• False statements;
• Filing false reports;
• Destroying evidence;
• Falsifying evidence; and,
• Tampering with evidence.³

2.2. Specific “records’ that may be released

In the four scenarios above, SB 1421 authorizes the public inspection of “records” found in a police officer’s, or other law enforcement officer’s, personnel file.

According to the Senate Bill, “records” include such items and information as:

• Investigative reports;
• Photographic, audio and video evidence;
• Transcripts or recordings of interviews;
• Autopsy reports;
• Documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and,
• Copies of disciplinary records.⁴

2.3. Redacting of information

Senate Bill 1421 states that when authorized records are open for inspection, some information must get redacted, or edited, to protect the identity of certain parties and witnesses.

The information that gets redacted includes:

• Personal information (for example, addresses, telephone numbers, and names of family members);
• Confidential medical or financial information;
• Information prohibited by federal law;
• Information the disclosure of which would create a danger to an officer’s safety; and,
• Information where the public interest served by not disclosing it outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it.⁵

2.4. Disclosure of other records prohibited

Senate Bill 1421 does not provide for the full disclosure of all records within an officer’s personnel file. Public inspection is only available for the four types of records specifically listed in the bill (please see 2.1 above).

The disclosure of any other information from a personnel file is prohibited under the new law, unless allowed under Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.⁶

California Evidence Code 1043 EC applies to information contained within an officer’s personnel file. EC 1043 states that this information is privileged, and thus not obtainable, unless you file – and are successful in bringing – a Pitchess motion.

This means Pitchess motions are still relevant under California law; and, they must get filed to obtain records not authorized under SB 1421.

3. How do you file a Pitchess motion?

California Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 outline the process for filing a Pitchess motion. The process includes three important elements:

1. Procedural steps for filing the written motion;
2. A showing of “good cause;” and,
3. An “in camera” hearing.

3.1. Procedural steps

You file a Pitchess motion before the beginning of your criminal jury trial, typically before the preliminary hearing. It must be in writing.⁷

Under Evidence Code 1043 EC, a Pitchess motion must include:

1. Identification of the criminal court case, you, the officer(s) whose records are being sought, and the governmental agency that has custody of the records;
2. A description of the type of records that are being sought;
3. Proof that you have notified the agency that holds the records of the motion and proof of service; and,
4. An affidavit showing “good cause” for the disclosure of the records (this is often written and signed by your criminal defense attorney).⁸

3.2. Showing of “good cause”

A showing of “good cause” exists if the affidavit sets forth both:

1. A specific factual scenario that supports allegations of officer misconduct in your case; and,
2. Reasons why the misconduct would be material to your defense.⁹

Example: Wendell is arrested after an undercover officer claims that Wendell tried to purchase drugs from him. Wendell files a Pitchess motion, and his “good cause” affidavit asserts that Wendell never tried to buy drugs from the officer, and the officer was simply lying.

The affidavit also explains that any information in the officer’s personnel record that would establish a history of dishonesty and filing false reports would be relevant information for Wendell’s case. The court decides that this affidavit is sufficient to show “good cause” for disclosure of the records under Evidence Code 1043 EC.²⁵

For police misconduct to have “materiality” to the pending litigation, there must be:

1. A link between the criminal charges in the case and the defense; and,
2. A showing why the requested information would make a difference to the defense.¹⁰

3.3. “In camera” hearings

If the above procedural requirements are meant, and good cause is shown, then a Pitchess motion moves onto an “in camera” hearing conducted by a judge.

“In camera” means that the hearing is private rather than in open court. The only people that usually attend are:

• The officer whose records are being sought; and,
• Any other people the officer is willing to have present (usually the custodian of records for the police department).¹¹

During the in camera review hearing, the trial court judge evaluates whether or not the information in the officer’s personnel files is relevant to your defense. Only information that the judge determines is relevant will be disclosed to you. The judge does not serve as a trier of fact and consequently does not decide credibility or weigh the evidence.¹²

Records that cannot be disclosed

There are certain types of information that the judge cannot disclose to you (unless the information is exculpatory, which means suggesting that you are innocent). Records that are off-limits include:

1. Information about complaints against the officer(s) that occurred more than five (5) years before the alleged police misconduct in your case,
2. The personal conclusions (as opposed to the disciplinary action) of any other officer investigating a citizen’s complaint against the officer(s), and
3. Facts that are so remote that disclosing them would have little or no practical benefit.¹³

Recipients of Pitchess materials may not reveal them for other purposes than the case at hand. If there is good cause, the court may issue a protective order to keep the information secret.¹⁴

4. What are the possible outcomes of a Pitchess motion?

There are two possible outcomes to a Pitchess motion. These are that the motion is:

1. Granted, and information is disclosed; or,
2. Denied, and information is not disclosed.¹⁵

4.1. Motion granted

If a court grants a Pitchess motion, and the judge finds records relevant to your defense, the records are not typically turned over. Rather, the judge provides you the name and contact information of anyone that previously filed a complaint against the officer.¹⁶

Your attorney then contacts those persons to interview them about the facts and can present them as possible witnesses. However, if the parties are unavailable or not findable, then you can obtain the actual records of an earlier complaint.¹⁷

If the judge orders disclosure of the officer’s personnel records, but the agency that keeps the records refuses to comply with the court’s orders, then the state must dismiss the charges against you.¹⁸

4.2. Motion denied and information not disclosed

If a court denies a Pitchess motion, and you are then convicted of the charges against you, you can appeal the conviction.

In the appeal, you would argue, in part, that your Pitchess motion should not have been denied because you showed “good cause” to gain access to the officer’s personnel file. The appellate court would then determine whether denying the Pitchess motion was an “abuse of discretion.”

If the lower court never conducted an in-camera review on the Pitchess motion, the appellate court can opt to “remand” the case so the lower court can conduct the in-camera hearing. Only when the lower court conducts an in-camera review – and then denies the motion – can an appellate court then reverse the denial.¹⁹

5. Why is it called a Pitchess motion?

Pitchess motions are named after the 1974 California Supreme Court case of Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531.

6. What is a Brady letter?

Prosecutors and police officers may keep a Brady letter (also referred to as a Brady list), which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or with past incidents of lying.

Officers placed on a Brady List risk termination or demotion. If they testify in trial, the defense could impeach their credibility.

Additional resources

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

• Pitchess v. Brady: The Need for Legislative Reform of California’s Confidentiality Protection for Peace-Officer Personnel Information – McGeorge Law Review.
• Reconciling Brady and Pitchess: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, and the Future of Brady Lists – San Diego Law Review.
• Good Cop, Bad Cop – Anyone’s Guess: A Review of the Pitchess Motion for Criminal Discovery in the State of California – Whittier Law Review.
• Reevaluating California’s Pitchess Process in Light of the Police Officer Misconduct Problem – Available at SSRN.
• Constructing a Better Estimate of Police Misconduct – PolicyMatters Journal.

Legal References:

HOW TO WIN A PITCHESS MOTION — A PREMIER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY EXPLAINS

Police misconduct can greatly influence what happens in a criminal case. Learn how the best criminal defense attorneys use Pitchess Motions to obtain information about improper police activity.

HOW TO WIN A PITCHESS MOTION

Getting a Pitchess Motion granted by the judge requires your attorney to understand the law and know how to use evidence to support the motion. Award-winning criminal law attorney Aaron Spolin generally fights Pitchess Motions by taking these steps: (1) utilize specific facts to allege officer misconduct and (2) articulate a logical link between the misconduct and the defense we will use.

Prosecutors might keep a “Brady List,” which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or past incidents of lying.

Former Prosecutor Aaron Spolin Explains How to Win a Pitchess Motion

1. Utilize Specific Facts: The best way to win a Pitchess Motion is with specific facts gathered from an independent investigation and through the discovery process. The Pitchess Motion must allege officer misconduct by providing a specific factual scenario establishing a plausible fact-based need for the records. Further, a judge is more likely to grant a Pitchess Motion if the request is narrowly tailored to the potential misconduct or impropriety.
2. Articulate a Logical Link Between the Misconduct and the Defenses: It is not enough to simply state that we believe the evidence would be helpful to your defense. We must articulate a logical link between the misconduct and the defenses we will use.

For example, if we claim that an officer used excessive force when arresting a defendant who is charged with resisting arrest, we should include the police report as an exhibit to the motion to show that there was an altercation during the arrest. We would not seek records of an officer’s sexual harassment since it has nothing to do with the defense. Instead, we would narrowly tailor the request to obtain evidence of similar past wrongdoings by the officer.

Another example may be where a defendant claims that an officer falsified information or planted evidence. A declaration should be filed with the motion stating exactly what the officer did or what evidence was planted. Allegations under oath that a detective fabricated evidence may rise to the level of misconduct to gain access to the personnel file where the credibility of the officer becomes an important question.

A Pitchess Motion should be filed if there is any indication that an officer acted improperly.

WHAT IS A PITCHESS MOTION?

A Pitchess Motion is a legal document requesting the court to allow the defense to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel file for evidence of police misconduct. These motions are typically brought during the pre-trial phase when the defense suspects that an officer may have acted improperly.

In the Pitchess Motion process, California is balancing two interests:

1. Protecting the privacy of its employees and maintaining secrecy of government information
2. Complying with mandates of due process and allowing access to records with good cause

Due Process Gives You a Right to This Information

The Constitutional right to due process requires that the prosecution provide the defendant with discovery. Under a court ruling in the case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecution must disclose any favorable evidence related to guilt. Discovery includes any evidence related to the case, whether or not the prosecution would ultimately use it for trial.

Some examples of evidence that must be provided to the defendant through the informal discovery process include the following:

• Physical evidence obtained in the investigation
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses
• Written and/or oral statements made by the defendant and any codefendants

Format of Pitchess Motion

A Pitchess Motion must include the following information:

• The time and place the motion will be heard
• The officer’s name
• A description of the information sought
• A statement based on reasonable belief that the government has the records or information sought
• An affidavit or declaration showing materiality
• An affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the disclosure

Good Cause and Materiality

In order to show good cause and materiality, the Pitchess Motion must make a valid claim justifying the discovery of the records being requested. The motion must have a declaration that explains which defense theory will be used and how that theory is tied to the specific facts from the case. It must be shown that the records being sought will aid in this defense.

However, it is important to note that a defendant is not required to disclose their defense strategy to the prosecutor. Thus, these documents can be filed under seal to protect the defendant from disclosing too much to the other side.

What Kind of Evidence Can a Pitchess Motion Be Used For?

Some police records are openly available to the public under California Senate Bill 1421 and do not need to be obtained through Pitchess Motion. For example, an officer’s use of force resulted in great bodily injury or death must be disclosed if requested through the informal discovery process. Also, evidence of dishonest acts by a police officer, such as perjury, must be disclosed. Other records that must be disclosed include when an officer shoots their gun at a person and if there is a prior finding that an officer committed a sexual assault. However, there are narrow exceptions in the records that are available to the public.

Other types of records are protected and cannot be obtained by simply requesting a copy from the police agency. A defendant must file a Pitchess Motion to gain access to other records that might be useful in their defense. Examples include prior complaints and records showing the following:

• Use of excessive force
• Fabricating probable cause
• Racial profiling
• Unlawful traffic stops
• Planting or tampering with evidence
• Sexual harassment
• Coercing confessions

Those records may be contained in investigative reports, photographs, audio and video files, transcripts of interviews, autopsy reports, disciplinary records, and other documents setting forth or recommending findings.

PROCESS FOR BRINGING A PITCHESS MOTION

A Pitchess Motion can be brought at any time after a person is charged with a crime, but before trial. It is a pre-trial motion. There is no set time limit for bringing a Pitchess Motion. However, it should be filed as soon as possible in order to give the defendant enough time to litigate the motion and conduct an adequate investigation if the motion is granted and evidence is obtained. It can even be filed before the preliminary hearing.

What Happens If the Motion Is Granted?

If the court decides the Pitchess Motion meets the requirements, it will grant the motion. If granted, the judge will review the records in private in what is called an in-camera hearing. That means the judge will review the records in their chambers with a representative from the police department, but without the defense attorney or District Attorney. If the judge finds anything relevant, it will then be revealed to the defendant.

Further, if the judge finds that some records are relevant, the judge does not turn over actual records to the defense. Instead, the judge will provide the defendant’s attorney with the names and contact information of potential witnesses, including anyone who has made complaints against an officer. This will allow the attorney to contact those people and gather information.

What Happens If the Pitchess Motion is Denied?

All is not lost if the court denies your Pitchess Motion. If the motion was litigated in a California Superior Court, the issue is then preserved for an appeal. You can request that the Court of Appeal review the Superior Court’s actions and decision in deciding the Pitchess Motion. The Court of Appeal reviews a Superior Court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion.

There are several ways to attack an appeal. Your attorney can argue that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying the motion and withholding records. Also, the Superior Court’s procedures can be challenged. The Court of Appeal will determine if proper procedures were followed, such as whether the court held a hearing on the motion or improperly denied it without an in camera hearing.

HOW A LAWYER MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Police misconduct can result in evidence that is ultimately used against the defendant to get an unfair outcome. source

PITCHESS MOTIONS IN CALIFORNIA

One widespread defense strategy a good attorney might employ when you’re charged with a crime is to seek to discredit the testimony of the law enforcement officer who arrested you.  This is an especially relevant strategy when the officer is suspected of misconduct, such as using excessive force or filing a false report.

Simply put, a Pitchess motion is a defendant’s request to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel file for evidence of misconduct, often part of the pretrial process when they believe the police officer acted improperly.

California Senate Bill 1421 was signed into law in 2018, making a Pitchess motion unnecessary for some types of requests for information because they are open for public inspection.

These open public records include situations when police shoot their weapon at someone, use force that results in great bodily injury or death, a finding they committed a sexual assault, or a dishonest act, such as perjury.

However, Pitchess motions are still necessary if the defendant wants information from an officer’s personnel file and the information was not authorized for inspection under SB 1421.

Some examples of information a defendant typically seeks include records where the officer used racial profiling, prejudicial acts, coerced confessions, or falsifying testimony or evidence. A Pitchess motion must describe the type of records or information they seek and show “good cause” to release the records.

Suppose a judge decides that a Pitchess motion shows “good cause” for disclosing a police officer’s personnel records. In that case, the judge holds a private “in-camera” hearing to determine whether the records are relevant to the case.

One of the most effective tools in implementing this strategy is for your attorney to file a Pitchess motion, a specialized discovery motion in California law where the defendant requests access to the law enforcement officer’s personnel records.

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF A PITCHESS MOTION?

The Pitchess motion originated from the landmark California case, Pitchess v. Superior Court, in 1974. In this case, Sheriff Peter J. Pitchess challenged the defendant’s request for complaints filed against the deputies involved in his arrest.

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that defendants have a right to access a law enforcement officer’s personnel records for information that might impugn the officer’s credibility or demonstrate their propensity for violence.

WHEN AND WHY IS THIS MOTION USED?

As noted, the primary purpose of a Pitchess motion is to uncover potential material that can be used to challenge or impeach the credibility of a police officer, especially in cases where the officer’s conduct is directly relevant to the topic at hand.

This is typically based on their past misconduct. For instance, if a defendant alleges that an officer used excessive force or fabricated evidence, a Pitchess motion can be instrumental in obtaining records that may support these claims.

This motion is particularly significant in the context of police misconduct records because it provides a legal avenue for accessing information that is typically considered privileged and confidential.

This includes details about an officer’s history of misconduct complaints, disciplinary actions, and other relevant behavioral patterns. Such information can be crucial in shaping the defense strategy and potentially influencing the trial’s outcome.

WHAT ARE THE CHANGES IN THE LAW?

As noted, as of 2018, Senate Bill 1421 has implemented essential changes in the law that make certain police records available to the public without the need to file a Pitchess motion. The main provisions of SB 1421 apply to records related to:

• Officer-Involved Shootings and Use of Force: Records relating to incidents where police fired a weapon at someone or when the officer’s use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury are now available to the public.
• Sexual Assault: Records involving sustained findings of sexual assault committed by on-duty law enforcement officers against members of the public are available under this law.
• Dishonesty Related to Criminal Investigations: The law also allows access to records where an officer was found dishonest in reporting, investigating, or prosecuting a crime. This includes perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

While SB 1421 broadens access to certain types of law enforcement records, it doesn’t eliminate the need for Pitchess motions.

Examples of police record information not covered by SB 1421 may include incidents involving racism or racial profiling, coerced confessions, etc. If a certain file or piece of information is unavailable under SB 1421, your attorney may still have to file a Pitchess motion to obtain access. Under SB 14 21, records can include the following:

• Pictures;
• Video and audio evidence;
• Transcripts of any interviews;
• Recording of any interviews;
• Investigation reports;
• Disciplinary records;
• Documents of recommended findings;
• Autopsy reports.

Notably, when authorized records are open for inspection, some information must be redacted or edited to protect certain people, such as witnesses. The information that is usually redacted includes the following:

• Personal info, such as addresses, phone numbers, and names of family members;
• Any information that would place the officer’s safety at risk;
• Any information where the public interest is not served;
• Medical or financial information.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PITCHESS MOTION IS FILED?

A successful Pitchess motion must go through a particular series of steps, as discussed below.

Filing the Motion

The attorney must include the following essential information when filing a Pitchess motion:

• Identifying information (i.e., defendant, court case, officer in question, agency holding the records, etc.);
• A description of the specific records being requested;
• Proof that the relevant agencies have been given notice that the records are needed; and
• Proof of good cause as to why the records are needed. (A judge will NOT grant a Pitchess motion unless good cause is established.)

In-Camera Hearing

Suppose the attorney has presented the motion correctly and proven good cause. In that case, the judge will hold an in-camera hearing (meaning “in private”) with only the police officer in question and anyone the officer wishes to be present.

During this hearing, the judge will review police files to determine which information is relevant to the case. Only information that the judge determines is relevant will be disclosed to the defendant. Off-limits records include the following:

• Complaints against the officer occurring more than five years before the alleged police misconduct;
• Personal conclusions of any other officer investigating a citizen complaint against the officer, and
• Information so insignificant that disclosing it would have little or no practical benefit to the case.

Notably, any Pitchess materials can’t be disclosed for purposes other than the case in question, and the judge could issue a protective order to keep the information private if there is a good cause.

GRANTING OR DENYING THE MOTION

After the in-camera hearing, the Judge will rule whether to grant or deny the Pitchess motion.

If the motion is denied: None of the police records requested will be released. If the motion is granted, remember that the requested files will still not be released to the defense in most cases outright.

Instead, the Judge will provide the name and contact information of the people who filed previous complaints against the officer that generated those files, and your attorney may then interview them to get their testimony. Only if those witnesses are not available to testify will the actual records be released.

If the Pitchess motion is granted and the agency in question refuses to release the officer’s personnel records, the charges will be automatically dismissed.

Prosecutors might keep a “Brady List,” which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or past incidents of lying. 

source

Pitchess Motions

A Pitchess motion (from Pitchess v Superior Court, 11 C3d 531 (1974)) is a special type of motion for discovery that requests information from a police officer’s confidential employment file. The need for this motion usually arises when the defendant alleges police misconduct. The type of information generally sought after with the Pitchess motion includes personnel records which show prejudicial acts, falsifying evidence and/or testimony, and the use of excessive force while on the job. To be successful on this motion, defense counsel must be able to establish that this information will pertain to some aspect of the defense.

Based on the Pitchess case, California Evidence Code sections 1043 to 1046 provide avenues to obtain some of the information which is sought by a Pitchess motion. Under these provisions, when defense counsel seeks to obtain officer personnel records they must file a written motion with the court. The written motion must be accompanied by other documents to be valid such as: a notice of the motion, a declaration or affidavit, police report copies detailing the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the proof of service.

The most detailed part of filing a Pitchess motion is the affidavit. Under California Evidence Code section 1043(b)(3), the affidavit must be based on “good cause” by demonstrating sufficient facts which show why such information is necessary and relevant to the issues in the defense’s case. The relevance between the information sought and the specific defense theory must have a strong link to prove such information will be material, and thus establish good cause. The court will determine whether good cause exists at a hearing where the agency holding the record, the district attorney, and the defendant and his/her attorney discuss the matter.

Under California Evidence Code sec. 1045, once the court is satisfied that good cause exists, it must then look at the evidence sought and determine whether it is indeed relevant to the defense’s case.

The court’s analysis is done through an “in camera” hearing, meaning that it is conducted outside of the presence of the jury and counsel. This hearing must be held by the court if the defendant shows that it was possible that the officer engaged is some sort of misconduct. Usually facts are alleged by the defense which shows how officer misconduct could’ve occurred. The defense may establish this by merely providing a different recitation of the factual circumstances, or may deny the facts as presented in the report by law enforcement. Garcia v Superior Court, 42 C4th 63, 72. In this examination, the court does not act as the trier of fact and thus will not determine credibility[1] or weigh evidence. [2]

Where the judge agrees with the defense that the information is relevant, an order is issued to disclose the information. Generally, the court will only mandate the disclosure of the names and contact information for witnesses involved in previous events with the officer. However, there are ways for the defense to get the actual reports of the incidents under certain circumstances, i.e. the witness is not available, the witness doesn’t remember, or refuses to discuss the incident.

Certain information is precluded from disclosure in a Pitchess motion. This includes events that happened too remotely in time, or the conclusions noted by internal affairs officers during the police investigation. Yet some of this information may still be available to the defense if it can show it relates to exculpatory information as provided by the Brady case.[3] Other information that is not disclosable is the personal information of the officer such as his/her place of residence.Hackett v Superior Court, 13 C4th 96 (1993).

Under a central case dealing with Pitchess motions, Alford v Superior Court, 29 C4th 1033 (2003), the court is required to order the recipient of Pitchess materials to not disclose them for any other purpose. Additionally, Alford holds that the district attorney will not automatically get access to the Pitchess documents. Protective orders may be issued to ensure the continued secrecy of the information involved. However, a protective order will only be issued if there is good cause to support it.

California Evidence code 1040(b) generally allows the government (i.e. law enforcement) to exercise a privilege over confidential information for which disclosure is against the public interest. Normally, to achieve the disclosure of such information, one needs to show that the interest to the public outweighs the agency’s need for disclosure. The use of a Pitchess motion can sometimes obtain access to the information even if the privilege is found valid. A law enforcement agency can be subject to discovery sanctions if it does not turn over the information in favor of continuing a claim to privilege. The situation can lead to a dismissal of the prosecution’s criminal complaint where there is no valid claim to privilege and the agency still refuses to provide the info requested.[4]

Whenever the prosecution appeals the allowance of a Pitchess motion, the appellate court will look to see if an abuse of discretion occurred. If the previous court denied the motion without conducting its in camera review, the appellate court can choose to remand the case and require the in camera hearing.[5] A reversal of the denial will only occur where the court has in fact done an in camera hearing and subsequently denied the motion.[6]

Pitchess motions can be used in DUI cases where a defendant believes the officer engaged in some sort of misconduct during the DUI investigation. This often occurs where there was some type of undue aggressiveness by police. A defense attorney will use the Pitchess motion process described above to obtain information about the officer’s past misconduct and inclination to treat suspects in an abusive manner. The Pitchess information can also be used to show past prejudicial acts by the officer, or a pattern of falsifying evidence. If you believe any of these situations occurred in your case, it is important to inform your criminal defense attorney to determine if a Pitchess motion will help your defense.

[1] Warrick v Superior Court, 35 C4th 1011 (2005)
[2] People v Gaines, 46 C4th 172 (2009)
[3] City of Los Angeles v Superior Court, 29 C4th 1 (2002)
[4] Dell M v Superior Court 70 CA3d 782.
[5] People v Gaines 46 C4th 172.
[6] People v Memro 38 C3d 658

source

Discovery And Police Officers: The Pitchess Process

Discovery relating to a peace officer’s job performance or disciplinary actions must follow a unique, statutory process

Under California law, certain information related to peace officers enjoys a conditional privilege. This limited privilege is held by both the peace officer and the agency. (Michael v. Gates (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 737, 744.) So whether you are representing an officer in a personal-injury or employment matter, or suing a law enforcement agency for battery or other civil-rights’ violations, you need to understand what information is privileged and how to get the information you need – or how to protect your client’s right to privacy

To obtain information from officer personnel records, complaint investigations, or disciplinary action against a peace officer, a party must follow a unique, statutory discovery method. Although this discovery vehicle is generally codified at Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq., it is often referred to as Pitchess, for the landmark California Supreme Court case Pitchess v. Superior Court (Echeveria) (1979) 11 Cal.3d 531. This article discusses the development of the Pitchess process and describes what kind of information is conditionally privileged. The article concludes by offering guidance through the Pitchess-motion procedure, which generally consists of a noticed motion setting forth, by counsel’s affidavit, good cause for the court to conduct an in camera review to determine which records are relevant and to be produced.

The development of the Pitchess process

In 1974, the Legislature adopted Penal Code section 832.5.This section requires law-enforcement agencies to establish a procedure for investigating citizen complaints against peace officers. Section 832.5 also requires the agencies to retain records of the original complaint and investigation for at least five years.

That same year, the California Supreme Court decided Pitchess. Cesar Echeveria was charged with battery of certain deputy sheriffs. Echeveria claimed that he acted in self-defense in response to excessive force by the deputies. As part of his defense, Echeveria sought investigations of citizen complaints of excessive force against those same officers. The Pitchess Court permitted Echeveria to obtain the investigations over Sheriff Pitchess’s objections. (Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 534.)

The Pitchess decision rocked the law-enforcement world, and record shredding and discovery abuses allegedly followed. (See San Francisco Police Officers’ Assn. v. Sup. Ct. (City & Cty. of San Francisco) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 183, 189.) To curtail these practices, the Legislature enacted changes to the statutory scheme to balance the right to privacy of the peace officer and the employing agency with the interest of justice. (See City of Azusa v. Sup. Ct. (Madrigal) (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 693, 696-97.) In 1978, Penal Code section 832.5 was amended at the same time Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8 and Evidence Code section 1043 were added by Senate Bill No. 1436. With these amendments, the Legislature attempted to protect a party’s right to a fair trial and the officer’s privacy interest. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1227.)

Evidence Code section 1043(a) sets forth the initial Pitchess procedure:

In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records. The written notice shall be given at the times prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon receipt of the notice the governmental agency served shall immediately notify the individual whose records are sought.

Case law has refined the parameters of this process. Notably, a Pitchess motion trumps general discovery rules in both the civil and criminal context. (Davis v. City of Sacramento (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 393, 400; see also, People v. Sup. Ct. (Gremminger) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 397, 403 [statutory Pitchess scheme takes precedence over discovery procedures in the Code of Civil Procedure]; Fagan v. Sup. Ct. (People) (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 607, 310 [prosecutor must comply with Pitchess process to disclose Pitchess information of retired peace officer defendant].) So, information protected by the Pitchess privilege is not discoverable under Civil Discovery Act inspection demands. (See Cty. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Uhley) (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1605, 1609; but cf. Dominguez v. Sup. Ct. (City of San Gabriel) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 6, 11 [finding that the City’s rights under Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq. were not impaired irrespective of how plaintiff’s motion to compel was entitled].)

In fact, the agency with custody or control of the records has no obligation to respond to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 request for production of Pitchess information. Moreover, the failure to respond to such a request does not waive any Pitchess objections the agency may have. (Uhley, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at 1611.) Nor may Pitchess information be disclosed pursuant to a California Public Records Act request. (Hemet v. Sup. Ct. (Press-Enterprise Co.) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1422; Cty. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Kusar) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588, 600.) The privilege applies to both pre-trial discovery and live testimony. (Fletcher v. Sup. Ct. (Oakland Police Dep’t) (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 386, 403.)

Whether the Pitchess process is available in administrative proceedings is uncertain. In Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531, the First District Court of Appeal found that the Pitchess process is not available in Department of Motor Vehicle administrative per se hearings. (Id., 183 Cal.App.4th at 1535.) In Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz (2012) 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 292, however, the Fourth District court of appeal expressly analyzed and “completely” distinguished Brown, supra. The Stiglitz court found that an administrative hearing officer may rule on a Pitchess motion where such discovery is relevant in a Government Code section 3304(b) hearing, which is an administrative appeal of discipline imposed against a public safety officer. (Id., 147 Cal.Rptr. at 308, 313.) On January 16, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Fourth District’s opinion, depublishing the appellate opinion and leaving the issue uncertain until the case is decided.

As for federal court, the Pitchess process is not binding. (Jackson v. Cty. of Sacramento (E.D.Cal.1997) 175 F.R.D. 653, 654.) The California Pitchess discovery rule requires that the requesting party make showing of materiality, which was specifically rejected in Federal Rule of Evidence 402. (Soto v. City of Concord (N.D.Cal.1995) 162 F.R.D. 603, 609 at n.2.)

Information subject to the Pitchess privilege

Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 provide the foundation for what kind of information related to peace officers is subject to the conditional Pitchess privilege. The information is protected regardless of whether it could be obtained from other sources. (Hackett v. Sup. Ct. (Glin) (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 96, 100.)

Penal Code section 832.7(a) states, in pertinent part:

Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. . . .

Penal Code section 832.8 states,

As used in Section 832.7, “personnel records” means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following:

(a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information.

(b) Medical history.

(c) Election of employee benefits.

(d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.

(e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties.

(f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

“Personal data” does not include the officer’s identity, unless the officer was the subject of a complaint or disciplinary hearing, the employing agency, dates of current employment, or other information relating to the officer’s current job status. (Comm’n on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles Times Commc’ns, LLC) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 294-96, 299.) Nor does personal data include an officer’s salary. (Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l & Technical Eng’rs v. Sup. Ct. (Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 341.)

The definition of “personnel records” pertaining to “complaints” is expansive and includes many types of documents related to potential or actual disciplinary action against an officer. Such records are not limited to Internal Affairs investigations, but also include Citizen Review Board’s reports. (Davis v. City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 898, 900.) Furthermore, “[u]nsustained complaints are discoverable as well as sustained complaints.” (People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93, n.1 (citing Saulter v. Muni. Ct. (People) (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 231, 240; Kelvin L. v. Sup. Ct. (Cabell) (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823, 829).)

“Personnel records” also encompass disciplinary proceedings against peace officers. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Cty. of San Diego) (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1279.) Disciplinary proceedings and citizen complaints are subject to the Pitchess scheme regardless of “the mechanisms set up by a local jurisdiction to handle such matters . . . .” (Berkeley Police Ass’n v. City of Berkeley (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 385, 401 (citing Copley Press, Inc., supra, 39 Cal.4th at 1294-95); see also San Francisco Police Officers’ Ass’n, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 188 (determining that a local rule allowing the complainant access to the hearing officer’s decision or director’s recommendation violates confidentiality provisions).) The Pitchess privilege remains applicable to “personnel records” even after a peace officer leaves her or his employment, so long as the former peace officer was employed as an officer when the conduct being investigated occurred. (Gremminger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 406.)

The agency often argues that any disclosure of information related to complaint investigations should be limited to the names and addresses of witnesses, as typical in criminal cases. In the criminal context, disclosure was limited to names and contact information of witnesses and complainants because the court believed the information was sufficient for the requesting litigant to prepare his or her case. In civil litigation, however, the rationale for this limitation may not apply. The court in Haggarty v. Superior Court (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090 stated:

The central rationale underlying the rule limiting discovery to witness identifying information is that the actual documents of third-party complaint information often have minimal relevance and constitute a substantial invasion of officer privacy. This reasoning does not apply in this case. As compared with the third-party complaint situation, the information contained in the Internal Affairs report is highly probative. Guindazola has the burden of proving the elements of his claims, and the investigation at issue concerns the very incident that is the subject of the civil claim. Additionally, Haggerty’s reasonable privacy concerns are diminished because he is the defendant in the litigation and the requested internal investigation records concern his actions that are alleged to be wrongful and will be fully litigated at trial. (Ibid.)

Moreover, the criminal-case opinions explicitly hold that if the information disclosed proved inadequate, the requesting party is not precluded from discovering additional information from the personnel files. (See, e.g., Carruthers v. Muni. Ct. (People) (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 439, 442 [recognizing right to receive additional discovery if initial disclosures prove inadequate]; City of Azusa, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at 696-97 [noting that disclosure of additional information was proper under Pitchess, supra, where witnesses were unavailable for interviews or could not remember details of events about which they had complained]; Kelvin L., supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at 829 [approving disclosure of witness identification information, but noting that if for any reason that information was inadequate, petitioner could move for further discovery].)

The nuts and bolts of the Pitchess procedure

The Noticed Motion

Evidence Code section 1043 sets forth the requirements of the Pitchess motion, and states,

(b) The motion shall include all of the following:

(1) Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought, the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.

(2) A description of the type of records or information sought.

(3) Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.

(c) No hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon a waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records.

A party must set forth with “some specificity” the type of information sought. (Warrick v. Sup. Ct. (City of Los Angeles Police Dep’t) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021.) The information requested must demonstrate that the party is not simply going on a fishing expedition. (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 85.) In City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (Kennedy) (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, the Court found that “other complaints of excessive force” sufficiently described the type of records sought and met the standard for good cause. (See id., 49 Cal.3d at 90-91.) In addition, if a party is seeking records related to an excessive force claim, the motion must also include the relevant police reports on the circumstances of the force alleged. (See Evid. Code, § 1046.)

The motion should be served on opposing counsel as well as the agency, or agencies, with custody or control of the records requested. (See Evid. Code, § 1043(c).)

The Affidavit(s) Showing Good Cause

The affidavit or declaration demonstrating good cause is the most critical component of the Pitchess motion. Evidence Code section 1043(b)(3) requires a showing of “good cause” by affidavit, which must demonstrate both “materiality” as well as a “reasonable belief” that the government agency has custody and control of the records or information from the records. An affiant need not, however, prove the existence of particular records – the “‘reasonable belief’ . . . may be premised upon a rational inference from known or reasonably assumed facts.” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 90 (emphasis in the original).)

“This two-part showing of good cause is a ‘relatively low threshold for discovery.’” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1019 (citing City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 83); see also People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182 (accord).) These “‘relatively relaxed standards’ serve to ‘insure the production’ for the trial court review of ‘all potentially relevant documents.’” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1016 (citing Santa Cruz, supra, at 49 Cal.3d 84).)

“Information is material if it ‘will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.’” (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1086 (internal citations omitted).) The California Supreme Court articulated four factors by which a party can demonstrate materiality: (1) a logical connection between the information requested and the party’s claims at issue; (2) the information requested is tailored to support the party’s; (3) the requested discovery will support or is likely to lead to information that would support the claims; and (4) the theory under which the information might be admissible at trial. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1027; see also Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at 182 (accord).) Obtaining information to impeach an officer’s credibility is permitted. (Garden Grove Police Dep’t v. Sup. Ct. (Reimann) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 430, 433 (review denied).)

Note, however, that the trial court is not tasked with evaluating whether a party’s theories are credible, or whether the party will prevail. The trial court does not weigh or assess the allegations, and does not determine whether they are persuasive. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1025-1026.) A party is not required to present a credible or believable factual account of, or a motive for, police misconduct. (Uybungco v. Sup. Ct. (San Diego Police Dep’t) (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1049.) A party must simply present a plausible factual foundation for the discovery requested: a scenario that could or might have occurred. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1026.)

Importantly, the affidavit for “good cause may be submitted by counsel.” (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 676, overruled on other grounds.) The California Supreme Court expressly allows counsel’s declaration to be made on information and belief – no personal knowledge is required. In fact, “the Legislature expressly considered and rejected a requirement of personal knowledge [for section 1043(b)(3) affidavits].” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 88-89 (emphasis in original. Indeed, “counsel need not disclose the source of the information asserted or how it was obtained . . . .” (Garcia v. Sup. Ct. (City of Santa Ana) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 63, 72.) The declaration may be filed under seal if necessary to protect the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. (Id., 42 Cal.4th at 68.) Submitting a declaration by counsel protects a party from cross-examination on the document.

Thus, the declaration lays out the theory of the case, explaining why the records are essential to the issue. If you are making a Pitchess motion, don’t be coy in the declaration. Lay out the facts, and demonstrate to the court why these records are crucial to your theory of the case. The declaration is your best chance to have a “presence” in chambers while the court is conducting the in camera review to determine which documents the court will order produced. The court generally will not stop the in camera proceedings to question you about why certain documents might be relevant, or request additional briefing on an issue. The declaration is your only opportunity to refute the agency’s objections to relevance in chambers. If you are opposing a Pitchess motion, scrutinize the supporting affidavit for whether the facts averred to adequately support the requested information.

The In Camera Review and Production

The court will conduct in camera review of the documents before ordering any of the records produced. On occasion, the custodian of records for the agency will appear with the relevant documents on the day of the hearing on the Pitchess motion, so the court may proceed with the in camera inspection right away. The court may also schedule the in camera review for a later date.

Upon order of the court, “the custodian of records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents . . . .” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 84.)

[I]f the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. . . [T]he locus of decision making is to be the trial court, not the . . . . custodian of records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive . . . . The trial court should then make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion.

(Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1229.)

To make an adequate record of the documents examined, the court may photocopy the records the custodian produced and place them in a confidential file, or the court can make a list of or state for the record the documents examined. (Sisson v. Sup. Ct. (Dumanis) (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 24, 38.) A proper record facilitates any appellate review for abuse of discretion.

To determine which records, if any, will be ordered produced, the court reviews the documents in camera for relevance. To be relevant, the records must contain information which may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at 182; Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1024; Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1087.) The information discovered does not have to be ultimately admissible at trial. (Larry E. v. Sup. Ct. (City of Long Beach) (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 25, 31-32.) The court may also consider whether the information may be obtained from business records, rather than individual personnel records, where the issue concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency. (Evid. Code, § 1045(c).)

Despite the permissive standard of relevance, the Evidence Code places certain restrictions on what information can and cannot be disclosed. Evidence Code section 1045(b) enumerates specific exceptions to what information is per se not relevant and cannot be disclosed. Section 1045(b) finds that information that is not relevant includes:

(1) Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation in aid of which discovery or disclosure is sought.

(2) In any criminal proceeding the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

(3) Facts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.

Furthermore, “[r]ecords of peace officers or custodial officers, . . . including supervisorial officers, who either were not present during the arrest or had no contact with the party seeking disclosure from the time of the arrest until the time of booking, or who were not present at the time the conduct is alleged to have occurred within a jail facility, shall not be subject to disclosure.” (Evid. Code, § 1047.) The court must also consider whether the information may be obtained from business records, rather than individual personnel records, where the issue concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency. (Evid. Code, § 1045(c).)

The in camera proceeding may take minutes, days, or even a series of hearings of a course of months. With the budget cuts, be prepared to provide a private court reporter. The transcript will be sealed, and any documents ordered produced will be subject to a protective order. At minimum, the protective order will prohibit the records disclosed or discovery from being used “for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (Evid. Code, § 1045(e).) The court may also issue a protective order which justice requires to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression” upon a showing of good cause pursuant to a motion of the agency or the officer. (Evid. Code, § 1045(d).)

A Pitchess motion is a powerful tool to obtain information from the personnel records of peace officers, including complaint investigations or disciplinary actions by the employing agency. Often, law enforcement agencies have dedicated Pitchess units to respond to – i.e., oppose – Pitchess motions. Understanding how the Pitchess process works will help you make an informed decision on how to best serve your client’s interests, whether you are making a Pitchess motion, or opposing one. source

When and Why Does a Judge Have to Grant a Pitchess Motion?

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) has been interpreted in many ways over the years, mostly associated with a criminal defendant’s right to certain discovery of police officer personnel file materials to support a defense to defendant.

The Reader’s Digest Version:  A judge must grant a Pitchess Motion if a defendant shows such information in a police officer’s personnel records concerning police officer misconduct in the past is material to the subject matter of the case against defendant.  The judge’s order, under Pitchess, can only order production of documents stretching five years back, not more.

New Haven Chief of Police Karl Jacobson on Tuesday recommended the termination of four officers involved in an incident that left Richard “Randy” Cox paralyzed last June.

Officers Luis Rivera, Jocelyn Lavandier, Oscar Diaz and Ronald Pressley as well as Sgt. Betsy Segui were placed on paid administrative leave in June of 2022. In November, they were charged with reckless endangerment and cruelty to persons; they pleaded not guilty to those charges. Pressley retired from the New Haven Police Department in January and received a pension, despite the charges.

Jacobson recommended the terminations following the conclusion of an internal investigation and hearings for the officers.

Jacobson noted that two other officers involved in the incident – a supervisor and an officer involved in detention – would also be disciplined. Jacobson said the penalty for those officers would be less than 15 days suspension.

“This department has gone through a lot since that incident, this community has gone through a lot,” Jacobson said at a press conference. “And the message to the community is that we … will be transparent and we will be accountable.”

According to Jacobson, New Haven’s Board of Police Commissioners will make the final decision about whether the officers are fired by early May.

Jacobson said that the internal investigation yielded enough information to pursue termination, despite the criminal case being ongoing.

“I think the days of waiting for criminal cases to conclude needs to stop; that’s one of the things the community has asked us to do,” he said.

He added that Segui and Diaz would still be eligible to receive a pension despite the charges and potential termination since their conduct did not violate the “bad boy” clause of their contracts.

In June of 2022, the officers placed Cox in a police van for criminal possession of a firearm and breach of the peace. Cox was seriously injured when the van’s driver stopped abruptly at an intersection to avoid a collision, causing Cox to hit his head on a metal partition. Despite asking for repeated help, the officers did not immediately render aid to Cox. Video footage later showed the officers dragging Cox by his feet to a wheelchair.

Jacobson said his department has implemented training and policy changes since the incident, including adding seat belts to all prisoner vans, training officers on de-escalation and revising department policy on transporting suspects in police vehicles.

“I asked my officers to continue to take each situation under those guidelines and to treat members of this community with respect and dignity, whether they’re an arrestee or complaintant, or whatever the case may be,” Jacobson said.

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump said Cox and his family were “encouraged” by the discipline for the four officers. Crump added that Cox is still paralyzed from the chest down because of injuries sustained in the back of the police van.

“These officers were sworn to protect their community, but they inflicted unnecessary and traumatizing harm to Randy, who will pay the price for the rest of his life,” Crump wrote in a statement.

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker Randy applauded the actions by the police department at a separate press conference on Wednesday.

“When Randy Cox was arrested, he entered a police van able to walk and now he is not able to walk. We need to ensure that this never, ever happens again,” he said. source

Randy Cox, paralyzed following arrest, sues for $100M

“Now the ball is in the city of New Haven’s court,” attorney Ben Crump said.

The man who became paralyzed from the chest down while handcuffed in police custody has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of New Haven and New Haven Police Department officers for $100 million.

According to the lawsuit, Randy Cox, 36, was sitting handcuffed, but otherwise unrestrained, in the back seat of a police van on June 19 when Officer Oscar Diaz abruptly hit the brakes. Former acting police chief Regina Rush-Kittle said in June that this was an evasive maneuver to avoid an accident. Cox was thrown across the back of the van and immediately could not move his body, the lawsuit said.

Cox’s family and his attorneys said the injuries sustained in the vehicle and the alleged neglect from other officers have left him unable to care for himself and leaves him with little opportunity to earn a living for the rest of his life.

“We think that there is no value that can replace the damages and the hurt and the harm and the mental anguish and the torture that he’s endured every day, every hour, every minute, every second, every second of his life,” attorney Ben Crump, who is representing the family, said in a news conference Tuesday afternoon announcing the lawsuit. “We did not have to file this lawsuit to tell you why the city needs to do the right thing.”

Crump said at least $20-30 million is necessary to maintain Cox’s “basic quality of life.”

Video of the incident released by police showed Cox was handcuffed but not secured by a seatbelt in the back of a police van when a sudden stop caused him to fall headfirst into the van wall. Cox had been arrested and charged with criminal possession of a firearm and breach of peace. As of Tuesday, these charges are still active and awaiting a plea.

After he was “violently thrown” across the van, Cox shouted that he was hurt. Oscar Diaz, the officer who the suit alleges negligence; recklessness; excessive force; denial of medical treatment; and failure to provide medical assistance, said he couldn’t pull over immediately, but did so two minutes later, according to the complaint. Diaz then called 911 so an ambulance could meet them at the detention center.

After arriving at the detention center, before the ambulance arrived, Diaz and other officers removed Cox from the back of the transport wagon, the suit said.

At the center, Cox “indicated several times that he could not move and he thinks he broke his neck,” the suit said. Despite Cox’s plea, the suit said the officers attempted to move him and “place him in a wheelchair to be processed and eventually dragged him to a cell by his shoulder while still in handcuffs.”

Body camera footage shows New Haven officers dragging Cox out of the van, moving him into a wheelchair and asking him, “How much did you have to drink?” followed by statements like, “He is perfectly fine.”

Cox’s sister LaToya Boomer said at a press conference on Tuesday that she wonders how her brother, who was readmitted to the hospital Tuesday for bedsores, would have been progressing had he not been moved so much, or at all, after he was thrown from his seat in the van.

“We don’t want any lip service, we want action,” she said. Boomer called for criminal charges to be raised against officers, saying she wants those responsible for her brother’s injuries to be “fired and arrested.”

Doreen Coleman, Cox’s mother, has taken on the role of her son’s primary caregiver son after the incident. She asked officers to hold themselves accountable for their actions. “Own up to it,” she said at the press conference.

The named defendants, officers Diaz, Betsy Segui, Ronald Pressley, Jocelyn Lavandier, and Luis Rivera, are currently on leave, pending the results of a state investigation into their actions, police said.

Segui declined ABC News’ request for comment; Pressley, Lavandier, and Rivera have not responded. Diaz was not able to be reached.

“I’m not gonna say what those officers felt, but it seems like they thought he was intoxicated. So they weren’t taking his claims as legitimate,” New Haven Police Chief Karl Jacobson said in an interview with ABC News on Tuesday. “We as a police department, especially [with] someone in custody, need to take everybody’s claims legitimately, and build that legitimacy with the community.”

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker told ABC News that, pending the outcome of the investigation, discipline for officers could potentially include being fired. The lawsuit did not come as a surprise for Jacobson and Elicker, who have spoken with Cox’s family, attorneys, and spent time with Cox.

“We are deeply committed to making sure something like this never happens again, and also to ensure that Randy gets justice. And we’ve implemented a lot of different policies, training in the police department to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again,” Elicker said. “We’ll continue to talk with our attorneys [throughout] this process.”

“What happened to Randy was not right. We’re doing everything possible to ensure that it doesn’t happen to anyone else. And that’s all we can do,” Jacobson said. “We can take the next right step and I feel like we’re doing that to make you know, this such a terrible situation a better situation where, you know, Randy can move on in his life and have what he needs, and we can fix the wrongs in the police department so that this doesn’t happen again.”

The Connecticut State Police are still investigating the incident.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Justice Department said it was closely watching the investigation into the circumstances that left Cox paralyzed.

“All suspects taken into police custody must be afforded timely and appropriate medical care in the event of an emergency,” said U.S. Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery in a statement in July. “If federal action is warranted, the Justice Department will pursue every available avenue to the full extent of the law.” source

---

All 5 officers charged in Tyre Nichols’ death removed or failed to activate their body-worn cameras.
They were caught by a ‘sky cop’ camera installed to monitor crime hotspots.

• All 5 officers charged in Tyre Nichols’ death failed to capture the entire incident on body cameras.
• 3 of the 5 removed their cameras during the still-active scene, according to new police docs.
• All 5 officers were fired and have since been charged with second-degree murder.

All five Memphis Police officers charged in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols failed to capture the entire encounter on their body-worn cameras, and three of the five fully removed their body-worn cameras during the still-active scene, according to newly-released police documents obtained by Insider.

Following Nichols’ death, the police department released portions of responding officers’ body-worn camera footage, as well as CCTV video of the encounter. The most thorough accounting of the deadly confrontation, however, came from controversial “sky cop” cameras that are installed throughout Memphis in crime hotspots and have cost the city more than $10 million.

Police documents obtained by Insider on Tuesday paint a picture of repeated missteps by responding officers, one of whom admitted to taking and then sharing a photo of Nichols, bloodied, bruised, and handcuffed on his personal cellphone in the aftermath of the confrontation.

The Tennessee Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission, a state board agency, received the police documents late last month as part of five decertification requests made by the Memphis Police Department for the five officers involved.

Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr., Justin Smith, Demetrius Haley, and Tadarrius Bean were all fired and have since been charged with second-degree murder in Nichols’ death.

On the evening of Jan. 7, Memphis police officers stopped Nichols on suspicion of “reckless driving,” though police officials have since said they haven’t found evidence that Nichols was driving erratically. An initial confrontation between Nichols and several officers ensued as they pulled him out of his vehicle and pushed him to the ground.

A second confrontation occurred after Nichols got up and ran away as an officer tried to Tase him. Body-camera footage showed several officers beating Nichols while he was on the ground.

Nichols died three days after the traffic stop.

Tennessee policy requires officers to activate their body cameras during “all law enforcement encounters and activities.”

But investigators said Martin failed to activate his body-worn camera during the first confrontation with Nichols. “At some point,” he also removed the camera from his duty vest and placed it in an unmarked vehicle, according to the documents.

According to the records, Bean also removed his body-worn camera from his duty vest and put it on the trunk of a squad car during the “active scene” and then walked away from the device while it was still recording in order to have a conversation with his fellow officers about the incident.

Mills’s camera caught the initial interaction with Nichols, officials said, but the officer later removed his duty vest and placed it on the trunk of an unmarked vehicle with the camera still attached.

Both Haley and Smith also failed to capture the encounter with Nichols in its entirety, according to police records.

Six cops in total have been fired as a result of the beating, and seven more officers with the department are facing an internal investigation and possible discipline, the City of Memphis announced Tuesday.

Tyre Nichols – MURDERED BY DIRTY PIGS

ENJOY LIFE AFTER THIS GUILTY OR NOT BY A COURT WONT MATTER YOUR NAMES ARE FINISHED
IF YOU END UP GUILTY ITS ADSEG SINGLE MAN CELL 23 HOUR LOCKDOWN FOR EX-COPS OR MAINLINE AND TORTURED!
IF YOU END UP NOT-GUITLY IN COURT, THE STREETS AND THE BUSINESS WORLD GOT YOU COVERED!

REMEMBER THESE LONG ASS VIOLENT VIDEOS ARE STILL REDACTED SO YOU KNOW IT WAS EVEN WORSE 

Police-issued body worn camera at an intersection. There is no audio for the first minute.

Someone within the City of Memphis, and I hope it’s the Chief of Police, understands that the murder of Tyre Nichols is not about rogue officers. It’s not about bad apples. It’s about a police culture that encourages brutality and indifference, and if that culture can’t change, the Memphis Police Department has forfeited its right to patrol the streets.

1.

The City of Memphis has released four videos. Everyone will focus on the last three because they capture Mr. Nichols’ murder. But someone in the city made the decision to also release body camera footage (Video 1 above atop article)  from an officer who was present when Memphis police first stopped Mr. Nichols. So far as I know, this officer has not been named, has not been charged, and was not present when Mr. Nichols was beaten to death. But if you wonder whether the murder is connected to a culture within the department, this is the video to watch.

The body camera in this video captures the moments after Mr. Nichols stopped his car. It’s worn by an officer who arrives just as another officer reaches into Mr. Nichols’ car, drags him out and, assisted by a third officer, forces Mr. Nichols to the ground.

At this point, the police apparently know nothing about Mr. Nichols except that he is a Black man who was allegedly driving recklessly. No video yet disclosed by Memphis confirms this allegation and the Chief of Police has said she has seen no evidence to support it. But even assuming it is true, the officers know nothing to suggest that Mr. Nichols was armed or violent. Indeed, in the course of the entire evening, no officer indicates they had ever seen Mr. Nichols before. They don’t even imply that they knew him by reputation. So far as they know, he is simply a young Black male motorist who may have driven recklessly, and nothing more.

Yet there is no way to describe the officers’ behavior except as aggressive, abusive, and belligerent. If anyone wants to know what the warrior mentality looks like on the street, watch this stop. This is how Memphis officers treat Black male motorists about whom they know virtually nothing. Mr. Nichols, whom the police variously describe as “thin” and “slim,” is submissive and frightened as he is surrounded by what looks like three or four much larger Memphis police officers. If you don’t trust any of my adjectives, or if you doubt any of this description, I strongly encourage you to watch the video of the body camera footage (Video 1 above atop article) (These officers were part of a special unit that the Memphis Police Chief has disbanded, to her credit. The question, however, is whether she also changes the cultural mindset that made the officers in that unit behave as they did.)

The officers sprayed a chemical agent in Nichols’ eyes, apparently several times. This agent burns horribly and makes it extremely difficult to see. A person sprayed will reflexively turn their head and try to wipe their eyes, which is exactly what the officers did when the spray got in their own eyes. As they did, Mr. Nichols got up and ran from the scene. As he ran, an officer fired a taser at him and believes that he hit him.

One group of officers chased after Mr. Nichols, even though the ostensible threat—reckless driving—had ended. At least two remained at the scene, apparently because of the chemical agent in their eyes. And as one officer complains that he “can’t see shit,” he sends out his hope for what should happen to Mr. Nichols when his colleagues finally catch him:

“I hope they stomp his ass.”

He says this though he knows his body camera is recording every word he says. It is the sort of unrehearsed, unmediated declaration that throws open a window into a department’s culture. If extralegal violence were unheard of in the Memphis Police Department, if there weren’t a cultural expectation that a person who makes the police look silly has to be “stomped,” this officer wouldn’t have expressed his hope on tape. Tellingly, the other officer at the scene does not react or object to this statement, at least not that we can see or hear.

2. 

Pole camera video contains no audio

Have you ever seen someone beaten to death? Not on television, but in real life. At a certain point, the repeated blows will render the victim utterly helpless. They can’t run away. They can’t cover their face. They can’t protect themselves. Yet they’re still conscious; it’s actually much more difficult to knock someone unconscious than it appears on TV. They can still cry out and make pitiful, ineffectual attempts to escape. They crawl and moan while blows rain down. More kicks to the head or back. More punches to the face.

If you’ve never seen someone beaten to death, now you can.

The second video body camera footage (Video 2 above) is taken from a camera attached to a pole in a residential neighborhood. There is no audio. It provides a largely unobstructed view of Mr. Nichols being beaten to death by the police. It’s horrific.

When the camera picks up the scene, Mr. Nichols is already on the ground, surrounded by four officers. One, and perhaps two officers spray him in his eyes. As Mr. Nichols reflexively tries to wipe his eyes, some officers continue to spray him while others scream, “Give me your hands! Gimme your hands, bro!” As Mr. Nichols turns his body to free a hand to wipe his eyes, the police become more aggressive. At least two officers kick him in the back and head. At this point, a fifth officer arrives and beats Mr. Nichols across the back with his police baton. It’s hard to tell, but Mr. Nichols may also have been tased again during this period.

By this time, Mr. Nichols is badly weakened and defenseless. The officers lift him up and, as he is surrounded by four officers, a fifth punches him viciously in the head and face. Over and over. His head snaps back and drops. No officer tries to intervene or prevent any part of the assault. Three days later, he died in the hospital.

 3.

Police-issued body worn camera video at a second location, a residential neighborhood. There is no audio for the first minute.

In some ways, the last 25 minutes of the second video are as hard to watch as the first five. After they beat Mr. Nichols, the police drop him to the ground. He is handcuffed from behind. After a couple minutes, they drag his limp body along the ground and prop him up against a police car. And for about a quarter of an hour, the police do nothing. No one administers first aid. No one checks his welfare.

By this time, Mr. Nichols is barely conscious. He cannot remain propped against the car. He falls to the left and lolls helplessly. The police grab him and prop him up again. He falls to the right. They prop him up again. More officers arrive. They mill around, talking with each other. Someone places a first aid bag next to Mr. Nichols but for long minutes, no one bothers to open it. A crowd of officers gathers. An officer adjusts his pants and reties his shoes. Finally, an ambulance arrives and takes him away, 22 minutes after the beating ended.

This simply doesn’t happen absent a culture of indifference.

4.

Police-issued body worn camera video at a second location, a residential neighborhood.  There is no audio for the first minute.

The third body camera footage (Video 3 above) and fourth body camera footage (Video 4 above) videos are body camera footage from officers at the scene of the beating. They add detail to the video provided by the pole camera, and because they are footage from body cameras, they include audio. On these videos, you can see Mr. Nichols sprayed repeatedly with the chemical agent and the futile attempts he makes to wipe his eyes. You can hear his groans. You can hear him calling out for his mother, again and again. You can see that he never makes any aggressive movements and that an officer has his arm even as he is shouting for Mr. Nichols to give him his hands.

And when the beating is finally over and Mr. Nichols lay prone, you can see the officers wandering around their police cars, catching their breath and checking their phones. You can hear them recount the details of the chase, both for each other and the officers who arrived after it was all over. You can hear them as they get their story straight. “He was high on something, bro. He was high as a motherfucker.” “He strong, I tell you that. He strong as a motherfucker.” “I opened that car door, he punched me.” “He reached for my gun. He had his hand on my gun.” None of this happened. At least, you can’t see any of it on the videos released by the city.

5. 

If someone asked you what happened in Memphis, what would you say? Would you say that five Memphis police officers have been charged with murder after they killed an unarmed man? That’s an easy and familiar headline: “Police Kill Unarmed Man” Can you file it all away now and move on, reassured by the fact that, thanks to the tapes, these five officers will almost certainly be convicted and sent to prison for a very long time? Is that the story?

Someone in the City of Memphis understands that that’s not the story. The murder of Tyre Nichols came at the end of a long series of culturally-determined decisions and choices involving scores of officers with decades of combined experience. It’s a story about recruitment. About training. About locker room culture. It’s a story about incentives and relationships. It’s about how Memphis police learn to patrol “those” neighborhoods and deal with “those” people, a designation that transcends simple narratives about race. It’s about what it means in Memphis to be a “good cop,” and the stories the good cops tell the new guys about the difference between legal and extralegal justice.

It’s about everything that adds up to the difference between dignity and brutality, and if the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department can’t change the culture they’ve created, their officers don’t deserve the badge.

After this essay appeared, the media reported that the Memphis Police Department had suspended the officer whose body camera captured the first video and who expressed the hope that other officers would “stomp” Mr. Nichols. source

DIRTY MURDERS WANNABE POLICE, NOTHING MORE THAN DIRTY PIGS! REAL COPS HAVE INTERITY, HONOR AND RESTRAINT!
HERE IS BODY CAM FULL FOOTAGE HERE ITS LONG AND UNCUT VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.
PLEASE ITS NOT PLEASANT BUT WE ALL MUST SEE WHAT IS DONE IN THE DARK WILL COME TO LIGHT

Memphis police just released the graphic body cam footage from Tyre Nichols’ brutal arrest — and the video is every bit as disturbing as Tyre’s family and law enforcement have described it.

In the clips, pulled from both body cam and overhead cameras, you see officers swarm Tyre — demanding he get down and give up his hands. Although he’s laying on his side with an officer on top of him, he’s hesitant to lie flat on his stomach.
One officer threatens to deploy his Taser, and after about a minute-long struggle … Tyre gets up to start running, and one of the cops fires his Taser, but he gets away.

About 7 minutes later, they catch up to Tyre in a residential neighborhood, and this is when it gets brutal. While he’s pinned to the ground — reportedly about 100 yards from his family’s home — Tyre repeatedly yells, “Mom!!!”

Then one officer kicks him twice, and another yells, “Watch out, I’mma baton the f**k out you,” and then strikes Tyre twice before they pull him up on his feet.

While 2 officers are holding him with his hands behind his back … another punches Tyre 5 times with a closed fist, sending him back down to his knees again.

Eventually, officers get Tyre handcuffed, put him up against a police cruiser and he writhes in pain for nearly 20 minutes before going limp.

As you know, the 5 Memphis PD officers stopped Tyre on Jan. 7 on suspicion of reckless driving … but from the start, the cops were hyper-aggressive. Even the video does not make it clear why things got violent that quickly.

Once other officers show up to the scene, one of the cops involved in the beating says Tyre attempted to grab for another officer’s gun — causing them to unleash on him.

After the vicious beating … Tyre was rushed to St. Francis Hospital because he was complaining he was short of breath. He was admitted in critical condition, and died in the hospital on January 10.

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who’s representing Tyre’s family, reviewed the body cam footage with the family days before it was released, and likened the horrific scene to the beating of Rodney King in 1991.

The 5 Memphis police officers involved in the traffic stop — Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmit Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr., and Justin Smith — have been fired and charged with second-degree murder.

They also face additional charges of official misconduct, official oppression and aggravated kidnapping. Four of the 5 have posted bail and were released as of Friday morning.

Tyre’s cause of death has not been released and the incident is being investigated by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Protests have been expected following this release of the footage … with Memphis Police, Tyre’s family, and even President Biden urging for any demonstrations to remain peaceful. source

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

Tyre Nichols’ last words heard on newly released bodycam footage: ‘I’m just trying to get home’

Tyre Nichols called out to his mother several times as officers continued to punch and kick him on Jan. 7

The Memphis Police Department released bodycam footage Friday evening showing Tyre Nichols’ final moments following a traffic stop on Jan. 7 before he was hospitalized and died three days later.

Nichols, a 29-year-old Black father and photographer, repeatedly called out to his mother and told five officers who were severely beating him — former Ofcs. Desmond Mills, Justin Smith, Emmitt Martin, Tadarrius Bean and Demetrius Haley — that he just wanted to make it home safely, the newly released bodycam video shows.

“I’m just trying to go home,” Nichols can be heard telling the officers in the footage, which was released to the public on Jan. 27, nearly three weeks after the incident.

The traffic stop began shortly after 8 p.m. on the night of Jan. 7, as the newly released bodycam video shows officers approaching Nichols’ vehicle and instructing him to get out of it, using profanities.

“Get out slowly,” the officers yelled, as Nichols appeared to remain in the vehicle. The officer’s bodycam does not show if Nichols is removing his seatbelt or otherwise complying with the request.

“Get your a— out of the car,” an officer yells before opening the driver’s door, grabbing Nichols, and removing him from the vehicle.

A Memphis police officer approaches the vehicle of Tyre Nichols on Jan. 7, 2023. (Memphis Police Department)

A Memphis police officer pulling Tyre Nichols out of his vehicle on Jan. 7, 2023. (Memphis Police Department)

Multiple Memphis police officer attempt to remove Tyre Nichols from his vehicle on Jan. 7, 2023. (Memphis Police Department)

“Stop, I didn’t do anything,” said Nichols, who initially appears to resist the officers before following their instructions. “OK, all right, alright, alright, alright, alright,” he echos, following the officers as they escort him toward the rear of the vehicle.

At this time, approximately 8:24 p.m., multiple officers can be seen forcibly grabbing Nichols to comply with their requests.

“Hey, you don’t do that, ok,” Nichols can be heard saying, drawing attention to the ferocity of their detainment.

The interaction swiftly escalates as Nichols continued to point out he believed they were acting out of line.

“Get on the ground,” the officers shout.

“I am on the ground,” Nichols responds.

“Turn around,” they again order.

“Yes, sir,” he responds.

“Turn the f—k around, I will tase you,” a single officer can be heard saying, with the taser seen pointed at Nichols.

“Stop,” Nichols responds calmly, looking directly at the officer.

“Man, get your arm behind your back before I break—” an officer chimes in.

“Ok, stop, I am,” Nichols can be heard saying.

He added: “You guys are really doing a lot right now. I’m just trying to go home.”

The officer shouted back: “Man, if you don’t lay down—”

“I am on the ground,” Nichols interjected, who at this time had at least three officers pinning him.

“Stop, I am not doing anything,” Nichols can be heard pleading as officers continued to grapple with him, per the video.

Memphis police have released video showing a deadly Jan. 7 traffic stop that led to murder charges against four officers. (Memphis Police Department)

A Memphis police officer points a taser directly at Tyre Nichols on Jan. 7, 2023. (Memphis Police Department)

Nichols wrestles to his feet and an officer tases him.

He then removes his jacket or shirt, disconnecting the taser pins, and runs down the street, away from the officers.

Other body cam footage, captured at approximately 8:33 p.m., shows two other officers tackling Nichols at another intersection.

The officers again grapple with the 29-year-old, who can be heard calling out for his mother several times.

The video appears to show Nichols continuing to resist being placed in handcuffs.

The Memphis police officer subsequently beat Nichols with a baton, pepper spray him, and punch and kick him several times.

“Watch out, I’m going to baton the f—k out you,” an officer can be heard shouting at Nichols.

“Give us your hands!” the officers shout while punching him in the face.

Nichols is next seen handcuffed, in a daze, sitting and leaning against the police car.

He was hospitalized that night and succumbed to his injuries just three days later, on Jan. 10, authorities said.

Fox News’ Adam Sabes contributed to this report.

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

Tyre Nichols video: Memphis authorities release footage from deadly traffic stop

Tyre Nichols, 29, died three days after Memphis prosecutors say police brutally beat him following a traffic stop

Memphis authorities have released four videos from a Jan. 7 traffic stop that preceded the death of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols, who spent three days in the hospital before succumbing to his injuries, according to authorities.

The first video released shows an officer pulling up to a stop in progress around 8:24 p.m. Police can be heard ordering Nichols to get out of the car, using profanities.

The brutal encounter led to the firing of five Memphis police officers, who now face numerous charges, including murder. And hours after the department released the videos, Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner Jr. announced that he was relieving two deputies of duty and launching an internal investigation of his own.

WATCH: Bodycam video shows Tyre Nichols pulled out of car, Tasered: ‘Get on the ground’

The videos begin after a police stop involving Nichols has already been initiated. An officer arrives to assist.

“I didn’t do anything,” Nichols says, as officers yank him out of the driver’s seat.

He appears calm at first, as they order him to get on the ground. Seated with his back to the car, he looks at police, and says slowly, “Stop.”

WATCH: Pole camera view of Tyre Nichols’ fatal arrest shows Memphis police officers brutally beat, pepper spray and Taser victim

“OK, all right,” he continues, as an officer aims a Taser at him. They repeatedly order him to lay down, then to turn around and to put his hands behind his back.

“You guys are really doing a lot right now,” Nichols says. “I’m just trying to go home.”

He doesn’t appear to respond to the order to lay on his stomach, and is shown on his side when an officer uses what appears to be pepper spray. At that point, Nichols appears to struggle out of the officers’ grip and get to his feet, running off as they discharge a stun gun.

At around 8:26 p.m., according to a timestamp on the video, he pulls off his shirt and takes off running.

WATCH: Bodycam footage shows officers standing over injured Tyre Nichols as he screams for help

By 8:33, two other bodycams show officers tackling Nichols at another intersection. One bodycam appears to fall off, and the screen shows fuzzy darkness for several minutes before an officer picks it up and can be heard saying, “He on something.”

Tyre Nichols can be seen in the aftermath of the struggle, his face swollen and bloody as he sits on the ground in handcuffs, leaning with his back against a car. (Memphis PD)

Another officer’s camera shows him running up as the struggle continues, with two men on top of Nichols, demanding he give them his hands repeatedly.

He can be heard calling out for his mother, but does not appear to allow the officers to place him in cuffs.

WATCH: Memphis police bodycam shows officers brutally beat Tyre Nichols and discussing it afterward

They deploy pepper spray, which then sends one officer reeling, apparently after he became struck with it as well, and he backs off for a few minutes before returning with a baton.

“Watch out, I’ma baton the f— out you,” he says as he returns to the scuffle, with officers still holding Nichols.

For several seconds he repeats “Give us your hands!” Nichols looks limp or in a daze, and another officer can be seen punching him in the face.

Responders with what appear to be medical bags arrive to treat Tyre Nichols. (Memphis Police Department)

The camera above appears to show officers punching, kicking and striking Nichols with a baton multiple times.

By around 8:37, they finally get off of him, and he is shown handcuffed on the ground, writhing. Police pull him over to the side of a car and lean him against it, and around 3 minutes later medics appear to begin treating his injuries.

At around 8:42, two officers among a group in the intersection indicate that Nichols may have tried to grab a gun.

Memphis police have released video showing a deadly Jan. 7 traffic stop that led to murder charges against four officers. (Memphis Police Department)

“We tried to get him to stop,” an officer can be heard saying. “He didn’t stop.”

He claims that he tried the sirens and repeatedly ordered Nichols to stop to no avail. None of the video released Friday includes any actions that indicate why police made the initial stop.

A view from a camera mounted above the intersection where Memphis police caught up with Tyre Nichols, who died three days later. (Memphis Police Department)

“He drove around, swerved like he was gonna hit my car,” the officer says. “Then I’m like God damn like what are we doing? He pulled up to the red light, stopped at the red light. Put his turn signal on. So we jumped out the car, s— went from there.”

In a statement to NewsNation, Blake Ballin, the attorney for former Memphis officer Desmond Mills Jr., said he would review the videos with his client “at the appropriate time.”

“A thorough investigation of all available angles is needed before providing context or comment,” he said.

Betsy Brantner Smith, a retired police sergeant and trainer and the spokesperson for the National Police Association, said the video showed clear violations of proper training.

“Nobody teaches baton strikes above the shoulders, nobody teaches kicks to the head, nobody teaches the denial of medical aid,” she told Fox News Digital. “These men were street fighting, they were not acting as police officers.”

An undated photo of Tyre Nichols. (Berry Accius)

She said the video was “not indicative of the men and women of American law enforcement” and urged Memphis police to review their hiring and training practices.

On Jan. 8, District Attorney General Steve Mulroy requested that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation conduct an outside investigation into the deadly encounter.

According to TBI, Nichols ran from officers after a traffic stop at Raines and Ross Roads at 8:22 p.m.

This photo provided by the Nichols family shows Tyre Nichols, who had a passion for photography and was described by friends as joyful and lovable. Nichols was just minutes from his home in Memphis, Tenn., on Jan. 7, 2023, when he was pulled over by police and fatally beaten. Five Memphis police officers have since been charged with second-degree murder and other offenses.  (Courtesy of the Nichols family via AP)

Police caught up with him again at Castlegate Lane and Bear Creek Cove, less than a half-mile away, and allegedly beat him for three minutes straight, sending him to the hospital with critical injuries.

Each of them faces more than a half-dozen charges, including second-degree murder, according to the TBI. All five surrendered to state authorities Thursday and later posted bond.

Sheriff Bonner, whose county encompasses the Memphis area also announced that he had relieved two deputies of duty hours after the videos became public.

“Having watched the videotape for the first time tonight, I have concerns about two deputies who appeared on the scene following the physical confrontation between police and Tyre Nichols,” he said in a statement. “I have launched an internal investigation into the conduct of these deputies to determine what occurred and if any policies were violated.”

Nichols was a FedEx worker with a 4-year-old son who enjoyed photography and skateboarding, according to his family’s attorney, Ben Crump.

An undated photo of Tyre Nichols. (Berry Accius)

Officials in Memphis and other big cities around the country are expecting demonstrations following the highly anticipated release of police bodycam video in connection with the case.

Speaking at a vigil Thursday evening, Nichols’ mother RowVaughn Wells urged supporters to protest peacefully.

“When that tape comes out tomorrow, it’s going to be horrific,” she said. “I didn’t see it, but from what I hear it’s going to be horrific.”

Memphis Police Department Officers Demetrius Haley, Tadarrius Bean, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills and Justin Smith were terminated on Jan. 18 for their role in the arrest of deceased Tyre Nichols. (Memphis Police Department)

DIRTY PIG ALERT, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE HANDED OUT FINALLY JUDGEMENT BY THE COMMUNITY, WITH IMMUNITY FOR THE FINISHER! THESE EVIL MEN RUIN WHAT THE BADGE STANDS FOR

POLICE ARE DEFINETLY NEEDED, POLICE LIKE THIS DO NOT GET THE RESPECT OF THE WORD POLICE, THEY ARE DIRY PIGS AND SHOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE COMMUNITY IN THE DARK!

Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis called the incident “heinous, reckless and inhumane” but also urged calm.

In an interview with Fox News Friday, shortly before the video’s release, she said she believed it goes beyond recordings of excessive force used against Rodney King in 1991 and George Floyd in 2020.

“I would have to say that this video illustrates images that I’ve never seen in my career before perpetrated by police officers,” she said.

TBI Director David Rausch, who also saw the video before its release, described it as “appalling.”

Tyre Nichols, who died in a hospital on Jan. 10, three days after sustaining injuries during his arrest by police officers, is seen in this undated picture obtained from social media.  (Facebook/Deandre Nichols/via Reuters)

“The actions of these officers were awful, and no one, including law enforcement, is above the law,” Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland said in a video posted to Facebook Thursday. “I assure you we will do everything we can to keep this type of heinous act from happening again.”

By Michael Ruiz | Fox News

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

Tyre Nichols’ brother awaits fate of 5 officers involved in beating: ‘I hope they die’

Tyre Nichols’ brother said he hopes the five police officers charged for his murder ‘die’

Tyree Nichols’ brother, Jamal Dupree, said he hopes the five Memphis police officers accused of beating his brother to death during a Jan. 7 traffic stop “die.”

“You want my truth? … I hope they die,” Dupree, who lives in Sacramento, California, told FOX 40.

Memphis Police Department officers initially stopped Nichols, 29, for “reckless driving” on Jan. 7. MPD said in a Jan. 8 press release that after a confrontation ensued, Nichols fled on foot. The five officers who pursued him allegedly beat the 29-year-old to death, violating multiple MPD policies.

Nichols died three days later on Jan. 10 in the hospital.

On Jan. 20, MPD announced the termination of the five officers involved in the incident for violating “multiple department policies, including excessive use of force, duty to intervene, and duty to render aid,” MPD Chief CJ Davis said in a press release at the time. All five were hired between 2017 and 2020.

Deceased Tyree Nichols’ brother, Jamal Dupree, told local news that he hopes the five Memphis police officers accused of beating his brother to death during a Jan. 7 traffic stop “die.” (FOX 40 Sacramento)

The former officers including Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr. and Justin Smith turned themselves in and were each charged with seven counts, including one count of second-degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, one count of official oppression and two counts each of aggravated kidnapping and official misconduct. They had all been released from jail after posting bond as of Friday morning.

“It doesn’t really mean nothing at this time until they’re actually found guilty for the actual charges,” Dupree told FOX 40. “There’s a good chance they can walk free from this.”

Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, died three days after being severely beaten by five Memphis Police Department officers during a traffic stop on January 7, 2023. (Scott Olson)

He noted that his brother’s “last words were screaming for” his mother, “and they didn’t care.”

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division also opened an investigation into the incident on Jan. 18.

Nichols was a FedEx worker, a skateboarder, a photographer and a father, according to Crump. (Scott Olson)

“As this is an open investigation, we are not able to provide additional comment or release further information at this time,” U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee Kevin Ritz said in a statement at the time.

Nichols was a FedEx worker, a skateboarder, a photographer and a father, according to Crump.

“He loved his son. Everything he was trying to do was to better himself as a father for his 4-year-old son,” the civil rights attorney said.

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

Tyre Nichols: Memphis police release body cam video of deadly beating

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

‘I don’t want us burning up our city’: Tyre Nichols’ mom calls for peaceful protests

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WREG) — The mother of Tyre Nichols is calling for peaceful protests after the video of her son’s confrontation with Memphis police is released Friday.Nichols’ stepfather said Monday he saw the video of his stepson’s arrest. During a candlelight vigil for Nichols Thursday night in Midtown, his mother Rowvaughn Wells said she hadn’t watched the video but knows it’s horrific.“I want each and every one of you to protest in peace. I don’t want us burning up our city, tearing up the streets because that is not what my son stood for,” said Wells. “If you guys are here for Tyre and me, then you will protest peacefully.”Dozens gathered at Tobey skate park on Avery to remember Nichols and show their support for his family. During a news conference on Monday, family members talked about Nichols skateboarding and shared a video of him doing what he loved.

Nichols’ stepfather said Monday he saw the video of his stepson’s arrest. During a candlelight vigil for Nichols Thursday night in Midtown, his mother Rowvaughn Wells said she hadn’t watched the video but knows it’s horrific.

“I want each and every one of you to protest in peace. I don’t want us burning up our city, tearing up the streets because that is not what my son stood for,” said Wells. “If you guys are here for Tyre and me, then you will protest peacefully.”

Dozens gathered at Tobey skate park on Avery to remember Nichols and show their support for his family. During a news conference on Monday, family members talked about Nichols skateboarding and shared a video of him doing what he loved.

The vigil was held hours after five Memphis police officers were charged with his death.

Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr., and Justin Smith were booked into the Shelby County Jail on charges of second-degree murder, aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of official misconduct, and official oppression.

The announcement was made Thursday by Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy and later confirmed by Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland. Officials have said they wanted to give Nichols’ family the opportunity to see the video before the public.

Wells said her family is grief-stricken right now, and she is concerned about what could happen in her city.

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

https://youtu.be/hQ9Iqz5pJHg

WATCH:  Tyre Nichols Protesters Block Freeway Traffic in Memphis

OBESE GLUTTON LYING SWORN OFFICER OF THE LAW WHO FAILS TO ARREST WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDERS AT YOUR SONS HOUSE AGAINST COURT ORDERS

HE COMMITS PERJURY, DELAYS & HIDES BODYCAM FOOTAGE, HE FAILES TO ARREST WHICH MEANS HE HIMSELF IS A CRIMINAL GUILTY OF PC 142 FAILURE TO ARREST AND HIS BODYCAM FOOTAGE HE FAILS TO TURN OVER PROVES THAT HIS NAME IS FAT PIG BRYAN HUNTELMAN (Brian huntleman) LHPD Scum

YOU ARE NOW A FELON THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROSECUTED YET FAT BOY LOSER. THIS FUCK WAD HAS ALSO A MILLION DOLLAR HOME AND A FILING FOR BANKRUPCY 

YOU DO THE MATH. ANOTHER DUMB FUCKING ABUSIVE PIG, NOT A COP, COPS ARE GOOD THEY STAND FOR GOOD, OFFICER HUNTELMAN IS A PIG FUCK A FAT BROKE LYING PIG FUCK WHO PROTECTS SEX OFFENDERS AND WANTED FUGITIVES 

HE LOOKS LIKE  A WEAK FAT TROLL

La Habra Police Offcer Bryan Huntelman A Criminal Hiding and Polluting the image of LHPD Officers and the OCDA office

The habra Police Department is willing to ruin their image to hide his bodycam footage. the footage is of his criminal activity part 1

La Habra Police Offcer Bryan Huntelman A Criminal at Large

Bryan Huntelman a criminal cop which is what a pig is. A pig is a filthy creature that is not to be eaten or touched, it plays in its own shit!

Offcer Bryan Huntelman is a dirty cop —— Cops doings crimes = Pig rolling in Shit

Numbers 32:23 KJV

But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

Bryan Huntelman a criminal cop Who Abuse’s his Sworn Oath, The Law, and Constitutional Rights of Citizens and fails to pay debts too hes filed for bankruptcy so he does not keep his word as man of debt (debtor) the MONEY MEN (creditors)

 

DIRTY Officer acting at all PIG Huntleman aka CUNTLEMAN Lying Cocksucker Beta Bitch Male (cops do not lie they protect and serve citizens [their employers])

Officer Huntleman is so dumb he included his wife in his shenanigans 

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Officer Huntleman committed PC 142 for failing to arrest

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 632 PC – Eavesdropping Law in California

wait for the audit LHPD stay cool LEARN THE US CONSTITUION or you will be sued and lose your job like Officer Bryan Huntelman
dont worry WALMART IS ALWAYS HIRING SHELF BOYS

this is coming to LHPD SOON SCORES OF PEOPLE ALL AT ONCE TO AUDIT YOU!

WE WILL WALK INTO YOUR LHPD LOT AND VIDEO TAPE ALL  YOUR CARS EVEN THE VISIBLE UNDERCOVERS, WE WILL VIDEO TAPE ALL STAFF CARS AND LICENSE PLATES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO THE TAX PAYER,
WE MIGHT EVEN TIE OUR SHOES ON  THE COP  CAR BUMPERS, ITS OUR CARS AS WELL AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL! SHOE HOLDERS EXPENSIVE SHOE HOLDERS

Officer Bryan Huntelman is a dishonest man who lies on police reports and literally imagines fake shit, puts it down as fact. i recorded Officer Bryan Huntelman lies. Officer Bryan Huntelman is a mentally ill dellusional man or a normal liar cock sucker you chose.Officer Bryan Huntelman is broke as a joke with a disaster for a house, and has filed for bankruptcy so we do know for a fact he is incompetent with his financials. Officer Bryan Huntelman  is DUMB WITH MONEY , MEANS DUMB, FLAT OUT DUMB! Officer Bryan Huntelman is 100% unfamiliar with the truth so he must be retarded and a shit back cocksucker. wait till the recordings speak the truth correctly and put you in your place for framing me you cocksucker. felony for lying on a police report multiple times

but you Officer Bryan Huntelman are gonna own up to this with our recordings shit bag!

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach of duty, legal cause, and damages. (Friedman v. Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.)”

 § 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution

Officer Bryan Huntelman – La Habra Police Department

LHPD – California – PEACEFUL ASSEBLY COMING SOON!

WHAT TO KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS ? CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE LYING FUCK (BTW YOU CAUGHT)

THE PHOTO IS CLICK BAIT, COULD NOT FIND THIS SCUM BAG ON ANY OF LHPD COP POSTS,
LOOKS LIKE HE HAS NEVER BE SOCIAL OR HAVE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER COP FRIENDS THAT WANT TO BE SEEN WITH HIM.
HE IS INVISIBLE PHOTO WISE.
NOT EVEN ANOTHER COP WANTS TO BE NEXT TO THIS LYING PIG FUCK
MAYBE THERE ARE A FEW GOOD COPS LEFT THERE AT LHPD (WE WILL FIND OUT:) , GOOD COPS AND PIGS ARE LIKE OIL AND WATER THEY DO NOT MIX

THEY GIVE LYING DUMB STOOGES like Officer Bryan Huntelman GUNS NOW A DAYS, LAME PIG LIYING SETUP ARTIST, WAIT TILL YOU GET CAUGHT IN THE WEB

THIS COP, Officer Bryan Huntelman , IS ALSO BANKRUPT, HE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY 2020 COULD NOT DO MATH OR FINANCE CORRECTLY EITHER
BUT LYING IS SECOND NATURE. Remember his is a PIG so he has a set income, he cannot control make less than the set amount.  No skill or work ethic required, and with that set number and the possibility of tons of overtime he still could not get his math right. Now if he had a brain (BRAINLESS BRYAN [BORN EMPTY HEADED]) Officer Bryan Huntelman WOULD HAVE ARRANGED HIS FINANCES AROUND THE SET NUMBER AS HIS MAX SPENDING AFTER TAXES. BUT… HE IS A CLASS AAA LYING MORON LOSER WHO FEARS THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND MATH. DOES YOU WIFE KNOW YOU ARE THIS DUMB OR IS SHE YOUR EQUAL?

Bryan C Huntelman is an evil master manipulator –

meet and confer information below

Bryan C Huntelman

He lives here, maybe the local community should get together and let officer Bryan C Huntelman he should to resign and turn himself in for his criminal activities and negligence. We are going to be having a peaceful assembly soon, please email us to participate in your 1st amendment rights against tyrannical government. We are going to be holding a peaceful assembly in front of his home address to protest his illegal behavior and hand out leaflets and flyers. PEACEFUL ASSEBLY IN PUBLIC ON PUBLIC AREAS NOT BLOCKING ROADS AND PATHWAYS IS THE AMERICAN WAY TO DISAGREE WITH CROOKED EVIL LYING CRIMINAL GOVERNEMENT OFFICIALS

WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS US CITIZENS TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE QUIETLY AND NOT TRESPASS NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO ANY ROAD OR PATHWAY AND HAND OUT LEAFLETS OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION THAT CONTAINS NEWS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR TRUTHFUL ACTIONS, JUST LIKE FOX NEWS 11 AND THE BIDEN LAPTOP. BUT STILL PLEASE DONT BOTHER ANYONE HERE AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE THIS IS HOW A COP LIVES

PEACEFUL PROTEST INVOLVES BEING KIND HOLDING YOUR SIGN OR LEAFLETS AND GETTING YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. YOU CANNOT BLOCK SIDEWALK, SHE IS NOT BELOW. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BLOCK OTHERS MOVEMENT. SO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S WAY OF MOVEMENT AND BE CALM HOLD YOUR SIGN AND KEEP UP YOUR DOINGS !

“It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radicals who desperately don’t want me to have fair and adequate family law/law enforcement services. Especially based previous misconduct and dismissed PC 653 Annoying and harassing phone calls to a residence  (public office isn’t a residence either) against law enforcement (they were recorded and case was dismissed after blackmail was paid to the OC DA Victim Rape Victim Fund (click here to listen to to 2 calls taken over 1 year apart) cases and the recent criminal malicious prosecution of me when I complain of their negligence and their own crimes they have committed against me and my son.”

They even had a nice expensive run down house needing paint and lots of work, it looks like a drug addicts house.  There he is living in LA with his wifes LA Phone number and then file charges in Orange County where he actually works and NOT where the proposed event happened, and file illegally charges that he was called and annoyed and now tough old copper is victim but wait……  His phone number claimed that was called belongs to his wife whom also has a LA phone number living in LA with him not orange county. as a resident of LA  she was required to have filed charges with the local jurisdiction, which is LA.  instead her brave husband OFFICER HUNTLEMAN LA HABRA POLICE DEPARTMENT goes to work later that week (in another county as an OC POLICE OFFICER LHPD) and illegally lies to other officers in orange county above events that occurred and who the real victim was in this proposed crime.

This officer tells his work officers many false things grossly telling lies.
1. he (653 man) called me (officer) and harassed me (his wife was called on her cell)
2. he and his wife resided in LA, his wiles phone (the real person called) has an LA based number to match her LA address in LA county far from the OC county where he filed for her as himself being the victim
3. by law if your are feeling annoyed by communications you must clearly tell the other party to stop, the party must stop after
4. if you the victim (officer) call them back to speak with them then 653 does not apply when you call (653 guy) saying you want to talk
5. if your wife never told (653 guy) not to call but simply hangs up that is not clear communication to stop, this could me cell phone service failed or battery died calling back until told to stop is still legal

this man was told he was being recorded, he admits in the recording his wife was called not him he also admits never telling anyone to stop, and he is made aware of his lying reports to his work officers (LHPD) outside of the jurisdiction of where the supposed proposed crime occurred. he knows jurisdiction and what a victim is but lies about both

Sworn law enforcement officers are those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency’s jurisdiction. Sworn officers also have the responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of life of the communities they serve. The basic duties and types of sworn law enforcement officers are summarized below.

https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/types-of-sworn-law-enforcement/

HOME UNKEPT!   YARD UNKEPT! YET VALUED AT A MILLION, HE FELL FOR THE KEEPING UP WITH THE JONES LIFE, THE LOT IS SMALLER THAN MY HOUSE ITS BARELY 6200 sqft WHAT KIND OF MILLION DOLLAR HOME 1296SQFT??? THIS AINT BEVERLY HILLS ITS LOMITA, A CHEAP SHIT BAG LIFE OVER PAID AND WILL PAY FOR HIS LACK OF INTEGRITY AND STUPIDITY LONGER THAN HE KNOWS

THIS MAN IS GOING TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO KEEP A NICE BLOCK WHEN HE SETS THE EXAMPLE OF DISREGARDED GARBAGE

ASIDE FROM THAT HE LIES AND DOES NOT DO HIS JOB AND THEN BECOMES VENDICTIVE USES HIS POWER ILLEGALLY ABUSING IT AND FILES CHARGES AGAINST ME

THIS DUDE SO TRASH HIS WHOLE LOT IS SMALLER THAN MY HOUSE SMUCK FUCK POOR TRASH WHO BREAKS LAWS ABUSES HIS POWER FILES FAKE CHARGES AS A COP WOW GREAT SCUM HERE
VISIT HIS MILLION DOLLAR SHIT BAG HOME IN SCUM ASS LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CALL HIM TOO ITS AN LOS ANGELES NUMBER HE WONT CARE NEITHER WILL ANYONE ELES

HE IS A DIRTY PIGGY NOT A COP

COPS ARE GOOD NOBLE MEN, PROPER TEMPER, CIVIC MINDED AND ALWAYS TRUTHFUL AND UPHOLDS THE LAW, THIS DIRT BAG AINT THAT TYPE

HES THE TYPE THAT IS GOING TO WORK AT WALMART SOONER THAN HE KNOWS!

Watch a lying cop commit even more crimes as he 2x in one day commit 632PC which not only is against the law in California and the constituition

he had no right to record me not committing a crime, just because i am not committing a crime and you are engaged in conversation that you later turn in as harassment you are silly! never once in the course of any conversation did you tell me to stop calling the phone, how am i to know its annoying if you engage with me and even call me from blocked numbers many times, one of which i tell you i am recording an record you telling me you just want to talk, how you wanna talk after filing charges illegally for 653(a) ??

(by the way you turned them in as 653 against you , its your wifes number, she just handed it to you while you were in your bedroom located in LA county where you illegally 632pc eavesdropped on me to record me not committing any 653!)

They even had they asshole Officer Huntleman who left a wanted fugitive sex offender around my child after he was shown the court order. Grandma gave it to him, i was in a across the block recording him from another vehicle

he witnessed and allowed a wanted fugitive of sex crimes that has a court order to be away from my minor victim son. he sent him back in the house. then this punk files 653 PC charges on me. bro you live in Los Angeles county your phone is registered to the 310 Los Angeles County Area, sorry you are out of your jurisdiction when you were filing charges against me, you still never told me to stop, you know i record you dumb fuck.  so i call you accept the call enjoy it because you dont tell me to stop, you then file charges outside of the jurisdiction with your corrupt orange county station you are employed at. you are scum so is the DA. fuck of you got nothing coming

STOP THE SEX OFFENDER AROUND MY SON THAT KEEPS COMING AND LIVING IN THE  HOME AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER

THE JUDGE MADE THE ORDER TO KEEP  MY SON SAFE AND YOU DUMB FUCKS CANT ARREST A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE FOR SEX CRIMES ……… WHEN I HAND HIM TO YOU

DUMB FUCKS SHOULD KILL YOURSELVES YOU ARE NOT LAW YOU ARE EVIL FUCKS THAT ARE LITTLE SKIN SKINNED IMMORRAL WEAK FUCKS WITH NO JUST JUSTICE IN YOU ONLY REVENGE AND ABUSE OF POWERS WHEN YOU WANKERS GET YOUR FEELINGS HURT. LIKE WEAK MEN THAT YOU ARE YOU CANT SOLVE A CRIME WHEN ITS HANDED TO YOU

FUCKING SHAME YOU ALLOW DANGER AND HARM TO CHILDREN

CONSIDER YOU PRIVACY GONE YOU NEVER HAD IT ILL MAKE SURE YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT EVER

ALL THIS GOES AWAY WHEN YOU ALL STOP

RETRACT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, LIES, FRAMING A TAX PAYING CHRISTIAN FATHER WHO WANTS HIS KID  SAFE!

FIX THE FAKE SHIT YOU STUCK ON ME

ARREST THE PERPETRATOR SEX OFFENDER FOR PC 288 AND PC 288.2 FOR PUTTING HIS DICK PHOTOS ON MY SONS IPHONE

HE IS ALSO WANTED FOR 2 OTHER SEX CRIMES IN 2 OTHER COUNTIES

THEIR IS A COURT ORDER THAT DOES NOT WORK AND IT WAS SET IN PLACE TO PROTECT MY SON

REMEMBER THIS SITE WILL STAY UP UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THESE TASKS

YOU DO NOT INTIMIDATE ME YOU ARE WRONG AND WRONG IS WRONG

MAN UP DO THE RIGHT THING YOU CAN WAKE UP EACH DAY AND CHOSE TO DO RIGHT YET YOU CHOSE WRONG

SITE GOES DOWN WHEN YOU HAVE DONE YOU JOB TO PROTECT MY SON AND REMOVE SEX OFFENDER AND FIX YOU FUCKING OF ME ILLEGALLY BY MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 

THIS IS SITE IS A 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT I HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE TRUTHFUL NEWS, HANDOUT FLYERS AND LEAFLETS AND ORGANIZE A PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY!

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right​

LIKE THE VIDEO MORE HERE PIGS, COPS DONT WORRY WE LIKE COPS WE DONT LIKE PIGS, THATS ANOTHER STORY!

Police Gone Wild – Cops Bloopers Dirty Cops Bad Cops – BUSTED! Cops Owned LEARN HOW YOU TOO WILL LOSE YOUR CAREER PIG SHIT

MAYBE THIS LYING MANIPULATIVE DBAG NEEDS TO READ HIS DEPARTMENTS CODE OF CONDUCT FOR
LHPD – MISSION STATEMENT CODE OF CODUCT FOR THEIR OFFICERS  FOR YOU DBAG IS HERE

THEY NEVER RELEASE BODY CAM FOOTAGE WHICH SHOWS OFFICER HUNTLEMAN DOING THE FOLLOWING

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Evidence Locker Below – Access Denied

Click Photo if to Access only if you know you have access, all other clicks will be considered trespassing by US Government

YOU ARE WORTHLESS JEALOUS BUMBLING LYING MORONS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVAL WITHOUT A GOVERMENT JOB, TOO DUMB TO SURVIVE LIKE A CIVILLIAN 

YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE SHOULD USE CONTRACEPTIVES, THE ONLY REASON, YOU ARE NOT NEEDED, YOU LIE YOU  ARE DUMB AND CORRUPTED = USELESS!
TO SPARE THE INTELLEGENT FROM DEALING WITH YOUR INSANITY OF YOUR INCOMPETANCE AND BIAS 

YOUR PARENTS WOULD HAVE SAVED THE GOVERMENT FROM A TORT

YOU ARE GUILTY OF CAUSING LYING ABUSING YOUR POWER HARMING DISOBEYING A COURT ORDER AIDING AND ABETTING A FUGITIVE CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND HARM TOP MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSPIRACY TO HARM MY CIVIL RIGHTS

AND YOU ARE GUILTY ARE HARMING THE REALTIONSHIP TIME WITH MY SON. YOU HAVE HARMED THE REALTIONSHIP BETWEEN Daddy & Son  –  EACH ONE OF YOU WILL PAY $$ AND YOUR REPUTATION AND ACTIONS WILL BE FOREVER CEMENTED IN WEB HISTORY.

Daddy Son Suffer

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Crimes Against Public Justice

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

What is Abuse of Process? 

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

Maybe CIU should investigate SIU, LHPD, GGPD and the Head DA Todd Spitzer as he is the superior who through pecking order oversees the subordinates under his control.  DA Bradbury (subordinate noun/adjective/verb) subordination and subordinate control of my case has committed Malicious Prosecution, he is guilty too of not watching his subordinate as his elected office has duties he is clearly failing and other duties he clearly violates and does run pay to play games as well.

“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.” (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988). This ruling make DA Todd Spitzer Negligent and a conspirator 18 U.S. Code § 241 to the violation of my (42-us-code-1983-civil-action ) civil rights and is a violation of code 18 U.S. Code § 242

Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous. Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called ‘the tenderness of the law Page 11 of 48 for the rights of individuals’ [FN1] entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not ‘plainly and unmistakably’ within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S.  624, 628, 10 S. Ct. 625, 626, 33 L. Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S. Ct. 407, 61 L. Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37.

We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196 [26: 377, 386].
We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sancity of a man’s home, and the privacies of his life.
As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”   In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.”  San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107;  San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.”  Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

In Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002.)  held that a malicious criminal prosecution was a naked constitutional tort, and was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the 4th Amendment. They just said it, basically out of thin air.

FRAUD BY GOVERNMENT

McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987),  McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit – and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) – includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. BURDEN OF PROOF ” 

The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests.” citing Meier v. CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952) quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193  Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”.  See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”  Clearfield Doctrine “Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen…where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.”

NO IMMUNITY

“Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

[a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.

“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

“Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. “

Civil Rights Torts

Thompson v. Clark 2022 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTOR & OFFICER

Holding: Larry Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution; an affirmative indication of innocence is not needed.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job conduct that violates the Constitution. Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government does in all three branches of government. Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders, addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the specter of personal liability.

When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it $anction$ a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.“

Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles – 12 Cal.3d 710 – Mon, 11-04-1974 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTOR & OFFICER

Section 815.2 provides: "(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee
or his personal representative.

[8] Malicious prosecution "consists of initiating or procuring the arrest and prosecution of another under lawful process,
    but from malicious motives and without probable cause. ... [Italics in original.] The test is whether the defendant was
    actively instrumental in causing the prosecution." (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 242, pp. 2522-2523.)
    Cases dealing with actions for malicious prosecution against private persons require that the defendant has at least sought
    out the police or prosecutorial authorities and falsely reported facts to them indicating that plaintiff has committed a crime.
    (Rupp v. Summerfield (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 657, 663 [326 P.2d 912]; Centers v. Dollar Markets (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 534, 544-545 [222 P.2d 136].)
    Similarly the suits against government employees or entities cited by the Senate Committee in commenting upon section 821.6
    all involve the government employees' acts in filing charges or swearing out affidavits of criminal activity against the plaintiff.
    fn. 9 No case has predicated a finding of malicious prosecution on the holding of a person in jail beyond his term or beyond the completion
    of all criminal proceedings against him.United States v. Wiltberger

cited https://goodshepherdmedia.net/sullivan-v-county-of-los-angeles/

Civil Rights

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) “It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.”

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)  “Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted “Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights… It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class. …And due process of law within the meaning of the (Fifth and Fourteenth) amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885) “The rule of equality… requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances”.

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) “No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”

Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438 “Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 “All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable.”

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it.” “It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.“

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486 ,489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.“

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.”

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459.

“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.  “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”  16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used.   When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases.  We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power.  Cook vs Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

It is a fundamental principle in our institutions, indispensable to the preservation of public liberty, that one of the separate departments of government shall not usurp powers committed by the Constitution to another department.  Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 662.

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.

“Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).

The US Constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state.   The constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind.  336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92;  Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

“Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US, supra.

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”  Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA.

you spoiled my right to a relationship with my son by perjurious statements in court and scheming to irritate, detract and divert attention from the real problem and paint me into a problem you sir will be SUED IN A CIVIL COURT when you get SUED WITH A TORT CLAIM on your department and county because you conspired to deprive me of my rights , by depriving me of  9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent/Child Relationship

you will be held accountable I DO NOT CARE YOU ARE A COP, YOU WONT BE FOREVER YOU WILL PAY, BUT WALMART IS HIRING AFTER ALL THIS SO DONT WORRY YOU STILL HAVE A SHIT LIFE JUST AT A DIFFERENT PLACE, A PLACE THAT DOES NOT ALLOW A PERSON WITH TRUST & POWER TO CORRUPT!  YOU WILL BE A POWERLESS LOW PAID WORKER WHEN AS YOU AGE, YOU ARE A LYING CORRUPT ASS PIG YOU WILL PAY MONETARILY & REPUTATION WISE 

you harmed me, my son, his grandparents and his brother  (my other son)

FRAUD$ BY GOVERNMENT

McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987),  McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit – and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) – includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. BURDEN OF PROOF ” 

The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests.” citing Meier v. CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952) quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193  Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”.  See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”  Clearfield Doctrine “Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen…where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.”

42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.” Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 .Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.

Juri$diction

[U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)] Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.

Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) “No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the juri$diction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.”

“Juri$diction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

[U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)] In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

MALICIOU$ PRO$ECUTOR$ = OCDA OFFICE THE WHOLE THING IS OFF

CHILD ENDANGERMENT, FAILURE TO ACT MALICIOUS  PROSECUTION AS WELL

Never helping Me or My son with a bonified Child Sex Crime of PC 288 and PC 288.2 

i still have the APPLE BACKUP OF THE DEVICE WHICH CLEARLY HAS ALL THE PHONE CALLS AND TEXTS BETWEEN ME AND MY SON ON HIS PRIMARY COMMUNICATION DEVICE THAT I ALSO FOUND HIS ADULT BROTHER DICK ALL OVER THAT WERE TAKEN IN PUBLIC PARKS. CAITLYN IS SO DUMB OF A CUNT SHE THOUGHT I WAS REPORTING THE CRIME OF DICK PICS IN A PARK! WOW DUMB CUNT YOU WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE DICK PICS ON MY SON’S PHONE THE LOCATION TAKEN DOES NOT MATTER, THAT CRIME WOULD HAVE BEEN INDECENT EXPOSURE REQUIRING A VICTIM IN THE PARK TO REPORT THAT MISDEMEANOR. I WAS NOT REPORTING THAT DUMB CUNT! I WAS REPORTING THE FACT THE PHOTOS WERE FOUND ON MY SONS PHONE, HE DOES NOT NEED TO SEE THEM WITH HIS EYES FOR THE CRIME TO HAVE BEEN COMITTED. THE MERE TAKING OF MY SONS PRIMARY COMMUNITCATION DEVICE , TAKING SAID BORROWED/STOLEN PHONE AS AN ADULT TO A PARK TO PHOTO HIS COCK AND DO THIS OVER A MULTITUDE OF TIMES, DAYS, AND LOCATIONS WOULD, MEANWHILE MY SON HAS RECEIVED THE PHONE BACK MANY TIMES WHERE HE PROCEEDS TO TEXT, CALL ME AND USE THE PHOTO APP FOR HIS POWN PHOTOS WHERE I CAN SEE HIS PHOTOS IN BETWEEN ADULT DICK PHOTOS

YOU FAILED TO PROTECT MY MINOR SON, THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED Never helping Me or My son with a bonified Child Sex Crime of PC 288 and PC 288.2 

YOU THEN BECAME A VINDICTIVE CUNT AS ALL WORTHLESS DUMB WOMEN ALWAYS DO, THEN YOU GOT SOME LOW BALL BETA MALE TO HELP YOU PUT A CASE ON ME AND YOUR CLUCK WAS BRADBURY THE BETA BITCH MALICOUS IDIOT WHO IS CAPTAIN SAVE A BLONDE DUMB CUNT HOE!

DA Caitlyn Harrington & Detective Jason Forgash  & Officer Montano & a Watch commander (all recorded by me) did this to me! She is the “dumb worthless young wet behind the ear cunt” I called her, SHE IS SO DUMB she puts it in her 653(m)  vindictive prosecution of me that she never answered my complaint of Gregory and his dick pics on my sons phone because their office is now vindictively  prosecuting me for Montano the lying pig that not only put a temporary restraining order for Marcia (baby mama) he lied and said he served me, but he did not, i never lived with Marcia. I lived at the time in Santa Clarita. Then this Dbag Montano is one of the same officers sent to investigate DICK PICS ON MY SONS PHONE, which as him  being in officer in both instances one for the mother one against the mother and no help to me is proof of bias as well. read all their reports….! Marcia ask LHPD to let her know if I call them (LHPD) to report anything at which in the report the officer in one of Marcia’s complaints has a “We told her we would notify her” wow so she gets warnings calls from LHPD when I call to report her violating the court order and allowing the sex offender in the home. Huntleman can’t even honor Judge’s stay away orders protecting my son from a wanted sex offender.  He also does not arrest sex offenders with fugitve bench warrants as he is too insubordinate and incapable of being able and apt to carry out his duty as a sworn officer of the constitution first, then federal law, the state law

424 F.2d 1021 US v.  Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. . United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.April 1970 Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct… If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”

OFFICER HUNTLEMAN WONT BE A COP LONG. HE IS A LIAR, A FRAMER, AND A CONSTITUTINOAL RIGHTS VIOLATOR. HE IS A POOR BANKRUPT CRIMINAL NOT A COP BUT A PIG WALMART IS ALWAYS HIRING BRYAN, YOU WILL BE ADDRESS BY A FIRST NAME NAMECARD AS WALMART EMPLOYEE, THEY HAVE RETIREMENT PLANS, ALBEIT NOT AS GOOD AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

WHEN THE LAST TIME YOU ROAMED THE OCEAN ON YOUR BOAT WITH YOUR KID?
WHEN THE LAST TIME YOU HAD YOUR KID DRIVE IN YOUR LAMBO?
WHEN THE LAST TIME YOUR FLEW A HELICOPTER?
AND BESIDE MONEY WHICH I TRUMP YOUR PUNK BROKE BANKRUPT ASS IN… MONEY MEANS NOTHING TO ME

MONEY IS A TOOL FOR LIVING, YOU NEED IT, I DO NOT!

GOD HAS BLESSED ME FOR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION AND PREACHING HIS WORD.
GOD WORKS ON THOSE WHO WORK FOR HIM

YOU KNONW WHY? GOD IS TAUGHT IN MY HOME FROM DAY 1

I HAVE THE RESEPCT AND LOVE OF MY SON AND NOT TO MANY FATHERS CAN SAY THAT

YOU INTERUPTED AND PARTICIPATED IN DESTRUCTION OF A FAMILY UNIT AND LETTING EVIL AROUND A CHILD MY CHILD, LAWS WERE SET IN PLACE AND YOU IGNORED BOTH THE WARRANT AND JUDGES ORDER TO NOT HAVE THE SEX OFFENDER THERE! YOU ARE A FUCK WAD AND FINISHED IN LAW, GO TO WALMART SIGNUP EARLY YOU WILL NEED PLAN B NOW!@

YOU HAVE FUCKED UP

TIME FOR GETTING A NEW CARRER AFTER YOU ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Dirty Cops Bad Cops – Police Caught BUSTED! Cop Owned

funny cops not being funny!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JuD_vBlyHpY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Neb787h2FI

https://youtu.be/AeF927yUyTA

Police Pig

Pig” is one of the many common slang terms for police officers. Since pigs are generally viewed as being foul and unpleasant creatures, and comparing pigs to humans is almost always done unfavorably in an offensive way, it’s frequently used as a very derogatory insult by people who don’t really like the police for various reasons.

“Pig” is especially reserved for cops who are regarded as being idiotic or incompetent, corrupt crooks, and violently (or even homicidally) aggressive towards other people. These negative stereotypes of the police also strongly parallel boorish behaviors commonly associated with pigs; such as greed and gluttony (which fits well with the common joke of donut-munching cops), leaving behind big messes for others to clean up, and generally being quite stubborn and ill-tempered (pigs can be very aggressive when it comes to securing food and territory, or when reacting to other perceived threats and provocations).

For this reason, fiction often uses “pig/cop” as a Literal Metaphor or Visual Pun, and portrays police officers as anthropomorphic pigs. In more realistic works, cops may instead have pigs as an Animal Motif or may have some vaguely pig-like traits. However, this isn’t always used in a negative way; in some stories (such as those set in a World of Funny Animals), a policeman may be a pig solely as a Stealth Pun. That being said, Stealth Pun examples are more likely to be seen as more neutral as opposed to outright heroic due to the negative context. However, this trope is not about simply calling the police “pigs”; the association must be strong within the work itself or at least prominently drawn attention to at some point.

This trope is Older Than They Think. The first known usage of “pig” to refer to a police officer was recorded in 1811. The 1972 animated film Fritz the Cat portrayed the cops as pigs (pictured on the top right), which helped to give the term a big comeback in modern times. This term is not exclusive to the English language either; the association of pigs with police carries over to other languages as well. Just for one example, the Finnish word sika (“pig”) is also used as an insult to the police. 

Existing tropes about pigs can also easily be combined with tropes about police. When The Bad Guys Are Cops, this trope will be naturally combined with Sinister Swine. Anthropomorphic pigs also have a tendency to be portrayed as (racist and/or sexist) Politically Incorrect Villains, so Bigot with a Badge naturally compliments that. As mentioned above, expect to see Donut Mess with a Cop mixed with Gluttonous Pig. There’s also a fair amount of overlap possible with Messy Pig or Perverted Pig. However, police pigs are rather unlikely to be Brainy Pigs, instead playing up the stereotype of being stubbornly (and literally) “pigheaded” to comically dimwitted extremes.

Also see Detective Animal, if the pig-cop is played as being more of an observant investigator. For other Animal Occupation Stereotypes (although these usually have much more neutral or even positive connotations), see Firehouse Dalmatian, Boxing Kangaroo, Fighting Panda, Mole Miner, Semiaquatic Species Sailor, and Busy Beaver. Also compare Foxy Vixen for another trope about animals being used as a Visual Pun regarding their name.

No Real Life Examples, Please! Since this trope is about a derogatory term, real-life examples (especially in the context of police-related controversies, or political activism in reaction to it) would only attract controversy.

   Comic Strips

• Pearls Before Swine: Mentioned in one strip, where Rat loses Pig at a protest and shouts “Pig! Come here, Pig!” while trying to find him. He accidentally attracts the attention of an irritated police officer in the process.

    Fan Works

• The Air Watch, in the Discworld, is made up of Witches with a passion for flight who provide Sam Vimes with an aerial dimension. Aware of the derogatory nickname, the Air Witches have claimed N-Word Privileges for themselves and their unit badge depicts a pig in a pointy hat astride a broomstick. Of course, any civilian referring to Flying Pigs might still get a taster of Watch brutality. Read more in the works of A.A. Pessimal.

    Films — Animated

• Fritz the Cat portrays police officers (pictured on the top-right) as corrupt, incompetetent, anthropomorphic pigs. As noted earlier on the page, the film was a major reason for the usage of “pig” as an insult for cops making a big comeback in The ’70s.
• Hoodwinked!: There are three policeman pigs who appear a few times in the movie, and they are shown to be quite gluttonous.
• Sing: Serves as a double Stealth Pun. When Marcus breaks out of jail to see Johnny perform in the ruins of the Moon Theater, one of the cops searching for him is a pig flying aboard a helicopter.
• Zootopia: A Stealth Pun example. At the end of the film, when Dawn Bellwether is in prison, a pig policewoman/guard can be seen watching the prisoners.

    Films — Live-Action

• Discussed and Played for Laughs in Dr. Dolittle, where a group of animals block the path to the building where the titular character is performing a life-saving operation on a circus tiger, which he kidnapped. The animals respond by chanting “Pigs, go home!” Actual pigs were among the animals, and assume they actually wanted them to go home until Lucky said they weren’t speaking about them.
• Spiral (2021): As a Visual Pun in regards to their MO (specifically, targeting corrupt cops), the Spiral Killer has a police pig puppet named “Mr. Snuggles.”

    Literature

• Animal Farm: Played with. The pigs aren’t necessarily police but are still in high positions of authority, and turn the farm into an oppressive dictatorship, using Angry Guard Dogs to enforce their Reign of Terror. The Acceptable Targets part of this trope is played straight, in that the pigs were meant to represent tyrannical despots such as Josef Stalin, who ran the Soviet Union as a totalitarian Police State.
• Filth: The book’s cover depicts a pig in a police hat, and the book itself is about a Corrupt Cop undergoing Sanity Slippage.
• The Stand: Randall Flagg, the demonic protagonist of the book, is described as wearing a denim jacket with several buttons pinned to it. One of them depicts a dead pig wearing a policeman’s cap. “How’s Your Pork?” is written along the bottom of the button.
• In Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, the policemen are pigs. This raised controversy and resulted in the book being banned in some schools and libraries.

    Live-Action TV

• Shakespeare Re-Told: Discussed. In the show’s version of the original play’s infamous Prophecy Twist, Macbeth is told he will be killed “when pigs fly”. His downfall at the episode’s climax involves the Police Helicopter Squad.
• Grimm features a were-pig arson investigator. There’s also one who’s a chef, but that’s another trope altogether.

    Puppet Shows

• The Muppets:
  • In the “Bear on Patrol” sketches on The Muppet Show, Officer Fozzie’s superior is Link Hogthrob.
  • In The Muppet Movie, when Dr Teeth is running through a variety of slang terms for the police, he gets as far as spelling “The P.I…” before Miss Piggy tells him not to finish that sentence.

    Video Games

• Pikelet from Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts is a Pig Man and the chief of the Showdown Town Police Force. While he doesn’t even pretend to not be looking forward to beat the bear and bird duo if they even think of breaking one of his highly arbitrary rules, he isn’t above letting them go if they are willing to grease his hooves a bit. Notes make the world go around, after all.
• In Disco Elysium, “pig” is a common insult used against cops in Revachol, and since many residents of the Martinaise district lack respect for the RCM, it gets thrown at the Detective and Kim a lot. Also referencing this trope is a woman who calls herself “The Pigs”, who has a large collection of police paraphernalia and speaks almost entirely in nonsensical copspeak. When you meet her, Kim wryly notes how refreshing it is that someone else is being called a “pig” for once.
• In the Duke Nukem series, one of Duke’s most typical enemies are the Pig Cops, who are LAPD officers that were mutated into monstrous Pig Men by the evil aliens.
• Mother 3: The main villains are the Pigmasks, a paramilitary organization whose members wear pig-faced masks and helmets, and whose leader is Porky Minch (himself likened to a pig) turned Dragon Ascendant.
• Police Quest: Many antagonistic characters throughout the series call Sonny Bonds or the Lytton police in general pigs. Tawnee V. Helmut in the first game’s remake even mocks the protagonist with several things associated with pigs (a sty, rolling in mud, and oinking) after receiving a ticket. Conversely, in the fourth game only Yo Money references those animals, calling Dennis Walker “a boil on a pig’s butt”, which is not meant to disparage the new protagonist John Carey and he immediately apologizes for any potential insult from that line.
• The fan-made Pokémon parody Pokémon Clover has Piguson, a pig-like Pokémon who dresses up as a police officer. It also chases after Vandash (a Pokémon based on Black stereotypes) in a jab at the bias against black people from the police, and its name references the Ferguson riots, which began after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer.

    Web Animation

• Helluva Boss tends to depict the police as being incompetent, violent, or both. In the episode “Spring Broken“, Verosika Mayday and her crew (who are Succubi and Incubi demons) realized that they need to “suck a lot of pig dick” to bribe their way out of being arrested, much to their disgust.

    Web Original

• The SCP Foundation knows of at least two distinct anomalies which both invoke this trope, albeit in very different ways:
  • SCP-4670 is a Greek-American witch named Cici Heliou, who has the ability to transform humans into pigs (basically a modernized version of Circe from The Odyssey). Cici is also a militant socialist with a murderous hatred for police, so she uses her powers to turn cops into pigs, slaughtering each of them to provide fresh pork for a barbecue restaurant she owns.
  • SCP-5740 is a chain of automated food stalls that dispense “dado-nuts” (SCP-5740-A), which are cursed donuts that have a strange property; if a police officer eats one of them, then they’ll soon suffer from severe diarrhea which ultimately leads to defecating a live pig out of their anus. The size and number of these swine will vary depending on the affected cop’s morality; the more crooked they are, then more big pigs will be pooped out as a result.
    • According to Project Isorropía, SCP-5740-A was used to successfully neutralize SCP-973-2 (a demonic, homicidalpoliceman known as “Smokey”, who brutally murders anyone he catches speeding through a highway that he “patrols” at night). One of the Foundation’s D-class personnel somehow managed to force-feed one of the dado-nuts to Smokey, which apparently caused the demon-cop’s body to violently explodefrom a ridiculously large number of pigs bursting out of him.

    Webcomics

• Vixen: NYC: Maksai gains the ability to change his minions into animal men. He turns a cop who stumbles onto his hideout into a pig-man, lampshading it as an appropriate transformation.

    Western Animation

• In the Samurai Jack episode “Jack and the Scotsman“, the title characters both get chased through a bayou by a Pig Sheriff leading a posse of hillbilly henchmen and robot alligators, looking to collect the massive bounty on both of them. These bounty hunters all play up redneck stereotypes to comic effect, especially with the Pig Sheriff speaking in a ridiculously fast-paced vernacular that sounds like gibberish.
• Chief Clancy Wiggum from The Simpsons is the comically corrupt and dimwitted leader of the Springfield Police Department. He has some resemblance to a pig, due to being an obese glutton with a nose that looks like a pig’s snout, a big portly belly, and small black shoes resembling hooves. His pig-like traits have been lampshaded by multiple jokes throughout the series:
  • In “Cape Fear“, Chief Wiggum complains during Sideshow Bob’s parole hearing that he called him “Chief Piggum“, which makes everyone in the courtroom laugh. Wiggum then admits that it was Actually Pretty Funny.
  • In “Lisa the Vegetarian“, Wiggum laughs at the roasted pig’s nose at Homer’s BBQ, even though his nose looks the same.
  • In “Take My Wife, Sleaze“, Homer’s biker gang (the Hell’s Satans) harass Wiggum, calling him a “pig” and repeatedly “oinking” at him. Later when a rival biker gang with the same name takes over the Simpsons’ house, Wiggum refuses to help, explaining that “Those pig noises you made really hurt my feelings… looking like a pig as I do.”
  • In “Day of the Jackanapes“, Wiggum refers to his feet as “little hooves” while he struggles to keep up with Bob’s walking pace.
  • In the “Treehouse of Horror XIII” segment “The Island of Dr. Hibbert,” Clancy and his wife Sarah both get turned into human-pig hybrids by Dr. Hibbert, thus making Wiggum a literal pig cop.
  • In “Marge Gamer“, Wiggum’s avatar in Earthland Realms looks a lot like a Pig Man.

imagery cited https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PolicePig

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

Victims of police misconduct, brutality, or excessive force can file a lawsuit in California. That lawsuit is usually based on civil rights violations.

The lawsuit can seek money damages for the victim. It can also demand an injunction that would prevent future misconduct. It could even lead to criminal charges being filed against the police officer.

Police misconduct can take a variety of different forms. Some of the most common include:

• unlawful detention,
• false arrest,
• excessive force,
• relying on racial profiling, and
• committing perjury.

When police violate a person’s civil rights, the victim can be entitled to a remedy. That remedy may include:

• criminal prosecution of the offending officer,
• a civil rights lawsuit demanding an injunction and/or monetary damages,
• a Bivens claim demanding monetary damages, and/or
• filing an internal affairs complaint with the police department.

In this article, California police misconduct :

• 1. What is police misconduct in California?
• 2. What is unlawful detention?
• 3. What is a false arrest?
• 4. What is excessive force?
• 5. How can police commit misconduct by using racial profiling?
• 6. Is it misconduct when police commit perjury?
• 7. What are the remedies for police misconduct in California?
• 8. Can victims file a complaint with the police department or town?
• 9. Can evidence found through the misconduct be excluded from court?
• 10. What is a Section 1983 claim?
• 11. What is a Bivens lawsuit?
• 12. Can police misconduct lead to criminal prosecution?
• 13. Can police be decertified by the government following misconduct?

1. What is police misconduct in California?

Police misconduct refers to inappropriate or illegal behavior by officers in their official capacity. Often this results in a civil rights violation.

Civil rights come from federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Some of the most common rights that are violated in police misconduct are:

• the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures,
• the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments,
• the right to due process before being deprived or life, liberty, or property,
• freedom of speech, and
• the right to privacy.

These rights can be violated by state actors, such as:

• police officers,
• sheriffs, and
• officers at law enforcement agencies like the DEA or ICE.

2. What is unlawful detention?

An unlawful detention is a police stop that violates the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Some detentions are more intrusive and controlling than others. The more intrusive the detention, the more certain a police officer has to be that the suspect committed a crime. In order of intrusiveness, there are 3 types of police encounters:

1. Consensual encounters. These are not detentions. Law enforcement officers can initiate these at any time. The suspect is free to leave.
2. Detentions. These are brief encounters that allow police to question a suspect and sometimes search a suspect for a weapon. They often take the form of a stop-and-frisk or a traffic stop. Police need a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred.¹
3. Arrests. These are when police take a suspect into custody. Police can make a full search of a suspect during an arrest. They can use handcuffs to control the suspect and bring him to a jail facility. Police need to have probable cause to make an arrest.

Detentions can be unlawful if they violate the victim’s rights. This can happen if:

• the detention was unreasonable long in duration,²
• there was no probable cause for an arrest,
• the police officer could not have had a reasonable suspicion of a crime when they detained the victim,
• excessive force was used during the detention, or
• the arrest warrant was invalid and the officer knew it.

3. What is a false arrest?

An arrest is an intentional deprivation of someone’s freedom of movement. That deprivation compels the person to stay or go somewhere, against his will.³

An arrest can be a false arrest if the peace officer had no legal authority to make it. False arrests violate the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights. They are also known as false imprisonments. They can happen when:

• police make an arrest without a warrant or probable cause, or
• police use an invalid arrest warrant to make an arrest.

Some victims are arrested without a warrant. In these cases, the police officer has to show he or she had probable cause.⁴ This requires showing there was reasonable cause to believe the person arrested had committed either:

• a felony, or
• any crime in the officer’s presence.⁵

Other arrests happen pursuant to a warrant. These can still be false arrests if the warrant was invalid.

Even if the warrant was invalid, though, the arrest can be legal if the officer acted in good faith.⁶

4. What is excessive force?

Police commit misconduct when they use excessive force during an arrest. The use of excessive force can make the arrest unreasonable. This can violate the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Police are only allowed to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to make the arrest.⁷ Factors include:

• whether the victim reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the officer or others,
• the seriousness of the crime at issue, and
• whether the victim was resisting arrest or trying to get away.⁸

In California, courts also note the officer’s decisions leading up to the use of force.⁹

When police use deadly force on someone, they can be charged with a crime. A new law in California makes it easier for this to happen.¹⁰ Previously, police could use deadly force when it was reasonable under the circumstances. Under the new law, it can only be used when necessary. And courts can consider the actions of both

• the police and
• the victim preceding the fatal encounter.

As of 2021, chokeholds are specifically prohibited. And as of 2022, any techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia are prohibited. Also as of 2022, police may not use tear gas or rubber bullets to disperse crowds except to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control.¹¹

When deadly force is used, it can also violate the victim’s due process rights. It would have deprived the victim of their life without due process of law.

5. How can police commit misconduct by using racial profiling?

Police can commit misconduct by using racial profiling to detain people. This practice is most common when police stop-and-frisk people they suspect of wrongdoing.¹²

Racial profiling cannot create the reasonable suspicion needed for a detention. That reasonable suspicion has to concern a particular person not a class of people.¹³ Using someone’s race as a reason for detaining them violates that person’s:

• Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches and seizures that are unreasonable, and
• Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

6. Is it misconduct when police commit perjury?

Police misconduct also includes committing perjury. Police officers perjure themselves when they lie under oath. They can do this:

• during trial,
• in grand jury testimony,
• in police reports, or
• in affidavits supporting probable cause for a search or arrest warrant.

This can make the resulting warrant invalid. Using the warrant can violate the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Perjury is also a crime. It can lead to charges of offering false evidence, as well.

7. What are the remedies for police misconduct in California?

There are remedies available for victims of police misconduct. They include:

• filing a complaint with the police department,
• asking the court to exclude any evidence that was found as a result of the misconduct, and
• file a civil rights lawsuit through Section 1983 or a Bivens claim.

In some cases, pursuing these remedies can lead to a criminal case against the cop.

8. Can victims file a complaint with the police department or town?

Victims of police misconduct can always file a complaint with the police department. That complaint can detail what happened and demand repercussions. In some cases, the complaint can lead to:

• the officer getting fired,
• a suspension,
• the officer being reassigned to another area in the department, or
• a reprimand against the officer.

9. Can evidence found through the misconduct be excluded from court?

Victims in police misconduct cases can find themselves facing a criminal charge. Evidence may have been obtained by violating the suspect’s civil rights. The defense can bring a suppression motion asking that this evidence be excluded from the trial. Without the evidence obtained through the misconduct, the prosecutor may have little else to use.

10. What is a Section 1983 claim?

Misconduct victims can also file a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. These claims hold actors liable for civil rights violations done under color of law.

1983 lawsuits can produce the following remedies:

• an injunction, or court order designed to keep the misconduct from happening, again, and/or
• monetary damages.

The injunctions from successful 1983 claims can lead to significant changes in the police department. It can force the department to:

• retrain officers,
• revise their official way of doing things,
• review internal customs, and
• fire offending police officers.

The monetary damages from a Section 1983 claim can include:

• compensatory damages, to compensate the victim for his or her losses,
• punitive damages, to punish the police officer, and
• presumed damages, to cover for the loss of liberty from the victim’s violated rights.

However, recovering monetary damages in a Section 1983 claim requires overcoming qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a defense that the police officer can raise. It protects them from having to pay monetary damages in a lawsuit if:

• they did not violate someone’s constitutional rights, or
• they did, but the right was not clearly established.¹⁴

The lawsuit can be filed against state or local officials and entities, like:

• the officer who committed the misconduct,
• the police department, and/or
• the town, county, or municipality.¹⁵

Note that recent California law, Senate Bill 2, says that a police officer cannot raise a qualified immunity defense in lawsuits filed under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. A citizen can file a suit under this Act if a police officer interfered by threat, intimidation, or coercion with that party’s constitutional rights.

11. What is a Bivens lawsuit?

A Bivens lawsuit is a civil rights lawsuit for money damages that is filed against a federal official. It is very similar to a Section 1983 claim. Unlike 1983 claims, though, Bivens lawsuits can be filed against federal actors like:

• narcotics officers at the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA,¹⁶ or
• FBI agents.

Also unlike 1983 claims, Bivens claims cannot be filed against entities like:

• Department of Justice (DOJ),
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).¹⁷

Like 1983 claims, though, defendants can claim qualified immunity for their actions.

12. Can police misconduct lead to criminal prosecution?

Police agency misconduct can be so egregious that it leads to criminal prosecution. The officer can be charged with a crime.¹⁸

Criminal charges against police for misconduct are rare. They often only come after truly outrageous conduct, such as severe police brutality, sexual assault, police shootings, or planting evidence. They tend to only be filed after the victim or his or her family file a lawsuit and begin to uncover damning evidence.

13. Can police be decertified by the government following misconduct?

Currently, California is one of only four states that does not have the power to strip police officers of their licenses. But if Senate Bill-2 becomes law, the government could kick officers out of the profession following sexual assault, dishonesty, abuse of power, physical abuse, and other serious misconduct.¹⁹

Legal References:

LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT

Investigations and Prosecutions

About the Law Enforcement Misconduct Statute

Physical Assault

Sexual Misconduct

Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm

Failure to Intervene

INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

The Department of Justice (“The Department”) vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department’s investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department’s authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys’ Manual (“USAM”), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.^[1]

^[1] The USAM provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.

ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT STATUTE

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

“Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].”

Section 242 is intended to “protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant’s actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual’s Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Physical Assault

In cases of physical assault, such as allegations of excessive force by an officer, the underlying Constitutional right at issue depends on the custodial status of the victim. If the victim has just been arrested or detained, or if the victim is being held in jail but has not yet been convicted, the government must, in most cases, prove that that the law enforcement officer used more force than is reasonably necessary to arrest or gain control of the victim. This is an objective standard dependent on what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances. “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989).

If the victim is a convicted prisoner, the government must show that the law enforcement officer used physical force to punish , retaliate against, an inmate, or otherwise cause harm to the prisoner, rather than to protect the officer or others from harm or to maintain order in the facility. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986).

Sexual Misconduct

Law enforcement officers who engage in nonconsensual sexual contact with persons in their custody deprive those persons of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right to bodily integrity. The Department investigates and prosecutes instances of nonconsensual sexual misconduct committed by patrol officers, federal and state probation officers, wardens, and corrections officers, among others. Sexual misconduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual assault without consent (rape), sexual contact procured by force, threat of force or coercion, and unwanted or gratuitous sexual contact such as touching or groping.

To prove that a law enforcement officer violated a victim’s right to bodily integrity, the government must prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant’s actions. Prosecutors can establish lack of consent or submission by showing that the defendant officer used either force or coercion to overcome the victim’s will. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant used actual violence against the victim. Coercion may exist if a victim is told that an officer will bring false charges or cause the victim to suffer unjust punishment.

Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm

Section 242 prohibits a law enforcement officer from acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to persons in custody. Therefore, an officer cannot deliberately ignore a serious medical condition of or risk of serious harm (such as a risk that an inmate will be assaulted by other inmates or officers) to a person in custody.  To prove deliberate indifference, the government must prove that the victim faced a substantial risk of serious harm; that the officer had actual knowledge of the risk of harm; and that the officer failed to take reasonable measures to abate it.

Failure to Intervene

An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim’s Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/law-enforcement-misconduct#iap

Looking for all your federally protected civil rights statutes?

Are you are looking for all federally protected civil rights statutes click here