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!

The image from video released on Jan. 27, 2023, by the City of Memphis, shows police officers talking after a brutal attack on Tyre Nichols by five Memphis police officers on Jan. 7, 2023, in Memphis, Tenn. Nichols died on Jan. 10. The five officers have since been fired and charged with second-degree murder and other offenses.

Four of the five former Memphis Police officers who have been charged in the death of Tyre Nichols had previous infractions with the department, according to Memphis police personnel records shared with NPR.

Former officers Demetrius Haley, Desmond Mills, Emmitt Martin, Justin Smith and Tadarrius Bean were fired Jan. 20 and are now being charged with murder. Video of the Jan. 7 incident was released Friday.

Four of those officers — Haley, Martin, Mills and Smith — were reprimanded or suspended earlier for their failure to report when they used physical force, failure to report a domestic dispute, or for damages sustained to their squad cruisers, according to the files from Memphis police. Bean did not have any reprimands or suspensions in the files.

The two discipline cases about the use of force focused on whether the officers filed the required reports about the incidents and did not appear to examine if the officers’ used of force was warranted.

Here is a look at the officers’ records:

Demetrius Haley

Haley started at the department in August 2020. He violated department policy when, in February 2021, he did not fill out a response to resistance form after he grabbed a woman’s arm to handcuff her. The forms must be filled out if an officer uses any part of their body “to compel compliance,” according to the file.

In a hearing regarding the incident, Haley said he misjudged the amount of force needed to warrant filling out the form. His lieutenant said Haley was a “hard-working officer” who “routinely makes good decisions” and “he was sure that this was a limited event.” Haley was given a written reprimand.

In August 2021, Haley crashed into a stop sign while responding to a call about an aggravated assault and was given a traffic ticket. During the hearing about the incident, Haley said that as he was driving to the scene, a call came over the radio that one of the responding officers was holding the suspect at gunpoint and that he sped there “only thinking about the officer’s safety.”

The hearing officer wrote that “Officer Haley took full ownership for the accident and was very humble during the hearing” and the violation was dismissed.

Desmond Mills, Jr.

Mills graduated with a degree in criminal justice from West Virginia State University in 2013 and began at the Memphis Police Department in March 2017.

In March 2019, Mills violated procedure when he dropped his personal digital assistant (PDA) into the street while entering his squad car. The device was then run over by a separate car.

It was Mills’ first infraction, and he immediately reported the incident to his union representative, so he received a written reprimand, according to department records.

Later that month, Mills failed to file a response to resistance form when he used physical force to take a woman down to the ground so she could be handcuffed and arrested. In the hearing in August 2021, Mills said he did not realize his actions necessitated use of the form and was again issued a written reprimand.

Emmitt Martin III

Martin graduated from Bethel University in 2015 with a degree in criminal justice and started at the department in March 2018.

In March 2019, a loaded handgun was found in the rear passenger side of a squad car used by Martin and his partner. Martin said he failed to do a proper pre- and post-shift inspection, and only inspected the car from the outside. During his shift that day, he and his partner conducted two traffic stops, in which the suspects were placed in the backseat where the gun was found. Additionally, the officers did not do inspections after the suspects left the vehicle, as is protocol. Martin was issued a three-day suspension without pay, according to the files.

In September 2020, Martin violated protocol by mishandling a domestic abuse complaint between two sisters, one of whose husband requested a report. Martin did not take the report and said he did not believe one was necessary, reasoning that the parties involved were intoxicated and the man’s wife – the alleged victim of abuse – did not want the report. The responding officers, including Martin, threatened the involved parties that if they had to take a report, both sisters would be arrested, according to department records.

A fellow officer and lieutenant at the disciplinary hearing defended Martin, saying the victim didn’t want a report and Martin is not one to “shirk responsibility.”

“Memphis Police Officers are directed by department policy and state law to make a complete report on the scene of Domestic abuse calls,” the hearing officer wrote. “Officer[s] cannot base their decision to arrest based [on] the victim’s consent or on the perception of the victim’s willingness to cooperate with prosecution.”

Martin was issued a one-day suspension without pay.

In a 2021 performance evaluation, Martin ranked as exceeding expectations in dealing with the public.

“Officer Martin is respectful when dealing with others regardless of their sex, race, age, or rank,” the evaluation stated. “He approaches his calls with a positive attitude and is well received when dealing with the public. He is continually a top leader in arrests and calls, and not one person he has arrested has complained.”

Justin Smith

Smith began at the department in March 2018. In January 2021, he was passing a vehicle and crashed into its rear, causing it to spin and crash into a third vehicle, which had two people inside. All parties were sent to the hospital in non-critical condition.

Smith said the driver of the second vehicle went right and then left into his lane suddenly. He admitted to speeding, but said his memory was somewhat unclear due to his minor head injury from the airbag, according to a summary from the disciplinary hearing.

Smith was issued a citation, suspended for two days without pay and ordered to take remedial driver training.

Tadarrius Bean

Bean started with Memphis police in August 2020. He had no prior infractions from the department on his record.

By Ayana Archie

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

The wrongful conviction of an innocent person should be every prosecutor’s greatest concern
(FUCKING LAUGHABLE AT BEST OC DA IS A HARD NOSED ASHOLE MORON VINDICTIVE 2 FACED PAY TO PLAY CRIMINAL HIMSELF, SO YEAH I CALL BULLSHIT CIU).
A prosecutor’s highest priority should be ensuring innocent people are never prosecuted.

The Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the OCDA investigates claims of factual innocence presented by defendants who were convicted in the County of Orange, California. 

A defendant or attorney seeking to have a conviction reviewed should complete the Conviction Integrity Intake Form and submit it to the OCDA

cited https://orangecountyda.org/ciu/

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA

 

OCDA OFFICE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office – Bureau of Investigation supports the prosecutorial and law enforcement endeavors of the District Attorney. It provides a wide range of policing services tasked with suppressing crime and ensuring all criminal cases filed in Orange County are thoroughly investigated.

The Bureau of Investigation (Bureau) is the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) law enforcement division. The Bureau is comprised of more than 130 sworn police Investigators who are seasoned law enforcement professionals recruited from other law enforcement agencies. District Attorney Investigators have extensive investigative experience, highly developed technical skills, exemplary work records, and an outstanding personal history. The Bureau also employs 90 non-sworn support team members.

Investigators assist prosecutors in trial by developing leads and locating additional witnesses, uncooperative or reluctant witnesses, ensuring the safety of victims and witnesses, and engaging in trial strategy with their prosecutor partners.

Their work is extensive, includes writing and serving search and arrest warrants, investigating original cases in complex matters, and going the extra mile to ensure the law is enforced in a just, honest, efficient, and ethical manner.

The Bureau’s “Special Assignments” unit responds to and investigates officer-involved shootings, custodial deaths, police officer criminal misconduct allegations, public corruption, and other sensitive or complex investigations. In addition, OCDA Investigators are assigned and participate on 10 different local, state, and federal task forces. These task forces allow law enforcement to leverage the abilities and expertise of the various participating agencies, which results in coordinated and effective investigations of the highest level crimes.

OCDA Investigator Expertise

• AB 109 Task Force
• Automobile Insurance Fraud
• Branch Court Services
• Child Abduction
• Child Abuse
• Civil Gang Injunctions
• Cyber Crimes
• DEA Task Force
• Cold Case Homicide Task Force
• Consumer Protection
• DNA Collection
• DNA Investigations
• Elder Abuse
• Environmental Protection
• Family Protection
• Felony Panel
• Gangs
• Homicide
• Human Trafficking Task Force
• In-Home Support Services Fraud
• Insurance Fraud
• Juvenile
• Major Fraud
• Medical Insurance Fraud
• Narcotics Enforcement Team 
• Orange County Auto Theft Task Force (OCATT)
• OC Gang Reduction and Intervention Partnership (GRIP)
• Orange County Housing Fraud
• Orange County Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory (RCFL)
• Organized Crime
• Professional Standards Division
• Protective Services Unit/Threat Assessment
• Public Assistance/Welfare Fraud
• Real Estate Fraud
• Sexual Assault
• Sober Living Task Force (SLIP)
• Special Assignments/Special Prosecutions
• TARGET
• Taskforce Review of Homicide and Sex Offenses (TracKRS)
• U.S. Marshall Task Force
• Vehicular Homicide
• Workers Compensation

cited https://orangecountyda.org/bureau/https://orangecountyda.org/bureau/

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.

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/daddy-son-suffer/

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 conspirator18 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.

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

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