Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Jenny, Ohio on June 15, 2009:

My husband was charged and convicted of a hit and run years ago. It is such a ludicrous story. He was in a parking lot and a cart was rolling fast and hit a car and dented it. He was nearby, but couldn't stop the cart - he'd driven over to see if he could stop it, not sure why he'd think he could. Anyway, someone saw him there and took his license plate and called the police. So we get a call. He goes down to the station to "straighten things out." Yeah right. So the plate is only partial, but we don't find that out until the trial. By going down to the station he placed himself at the crime scene (truly just an accident, but the car owner wanted someone to pay besides themselves if you KWIM.) He took it to court and everyone lied, the witness, the officer (who said that he read him his rights but never did.) So he was convicted and our insurance paid. We ended up on high risk insurance for several years, so it cost us a good bit of money, even though our lawyer was my cousin and didn't charge us.

Looking back, we learned a good lesson. When other things have come up we now know to never, ever talk to the police, no matter how innocent you are. Just don't. And it has defused a couple of situations that we didn't talk. My brother is a lawyer now and I always call him if something looks like it might become an issue, like one time when my then 10 and 8 yo sons got into fight and the mom tried to file assault charges.

Posted by bandit, albuquerque on June 15, 2009:

The drug laws have, sadly, forced me to not trust *any* cop I meet, unless I already know them as an honest person - and even then I don't piss them off....

The logic is fairly simple:

The two things cops fear the most are domestic calls and traffic stops. Domestic calls because it is guaranteed that everybody will act in a non-linear manner (the beaten spouse will attack the cop).

Traffic stops because, even with all of the info from the license plate and the various tricks, there is some probability that the cop will end up dead.

This outcome has a low probability (per traffic stops), but the consequences are severe. The cop's life is ruined (even if just badly wounded), their family severely hurt, etc.

From the other side, I, as a citizen, do not know if the cop I encounter is a corrupt or good cop. The cops will admit between 5% and 10% are corrupt.

If the cop is corrupt, he can plant drugs on me because it looks good. I have *no* defense against this. None. Nada.

It's even worse in some places where the cops have deliberately and systematically stopping drivers to "search for drugs", finding money, and keeping it. They let you sign a form where you promise not to sue them for the money. You had better sign, because they could then "find" drugs on you.

Please note this is not paranoia. NPR has had several stories on exactly this practice in Texas and major parts of the south. Also, look up "Tulia, Texas", and "Rampart Division" in Los Angeles.

So the cop "finds" drugs on me. Depending on where I am (most places), I am guaranteed to be found a felon, and thrown into prison for many years or the rest of my life (possession of a single joint is *life* in Oklahoma).

My life is ruined, my family destroyed and probably end up on the street, etc.

In the case of the cop doing a traffic stop, it is a job hazard. Encountering a corrupt cop should not be a hazard of being a law-abiding citizen.

Look at www.LEAP.cc - there are a fair number of cops, many high ranking, who want an end of the drug war.

And ... I *should* be the target audience for cheering the cops! I am a middle-aged, honest, law-abiding citizen. My professional career has included working on a police message switcher. *Every* time a cop has done a traffic stop since 1993 in California and Oregon, and called in the car or drivers license, the query has gone thru *my* code. *I* wrote that part of the code, as well as other parts of the system.

That said, there are times I have been glad to be a white male.

This is in addition to other horror stories like have been posted here. I have known several folks who have been falsely convicted - where the evidence is *obviously* false or points to another.

Posted by Tom - Minneapolis on June 16, 2009:

Just a comment on some thoughts expressed here regarding traffic stops and questioning by police. As a retired officer, I can say that no Miranda Warning is needed to ask questions during a traffic stop if these questions simply pertain to speeding.

The traffic stop is "presumptively temporary and brief" and as a result, non-custodial, and questions asked by the officer are not considered custodial interrogations. Officers may ask you if you know how fast you were going and use your answer against you.

Remember, you are not in custody when stopped for a traffic stop and no Miranda Warning is needed.

---

Thanks, Tom, for helping to clear that up. -rc

Posted by Mat in Tulsa on June 19, 2009:

Two words I am surprised I have not seen yet in this discussion: Richard Jewell.

The man was doing his job as a private security guard, spotted a suspicious package and alerted law enforcement. The FBI decided he would be a convenient patsy and tried to railroad him. They almost succeeded. Their 'reasoning'? He spotted it, he probably planted it. Brilliant.

I believe it's bad luck to antagonize someone that wears a gun and Kevlar vest to work. I have also been mistreated by a uniformed cop, just once, but that was enough. Maybe he was having a bad day. It doesn't matter. That experience colors every encounter I have with law enforcement, including a casual hello. I realize most of the guys in that job description are good people at heart but it just takes one bad experience to poison that well. And I also realize that having to deal with the dregs of society for 40 hours a week can ruin your opinion of mankind. That shouldn't be permission to assume everybody is evil and must be punished.

---

For more on Jewell, see Wikipedia. Jewell was completely exonerated and won several lawsuits/settlements, but surely the stress over his being a suspect in the bombing contributed to his early death at 44. -rc

Posted by Andara - Long Beach, CA on June 19, 2009:

For anyone and everyone who thinks that the "don't talk to cops and don't consent to any form of search" contingent are overly paranoid, I have two things to say.

JonBenet Ramsey and Stephanie Crowe.

In both of those cases, the officers on the scene were so certain that they knew who had done it, that they harassed and traumatized the families of the victims, and in the Ramsey case very possibly sabotaged any hope of finding the actual perpetrator.

You can be polite without giving them ammunition that will be used against you.

Posted by Louie, Georgia on June 30, 2009:

@Andara: The Ramsey family was not harassed. The police department in that case had to resort to "inviting" them to come for questioning, and at that, their lawyers demanded a list of questions to be asked in advance. Do you think that if your daughter was found dead in your own basement in a reasonably secure house, with a note that included information that was known only to the immediate family, that you would be "invited" to come answer questions? And be permitted to decline numerous times? And be permitted to demand to know what questions would be asked?

@Minneapolis Tom: A police stop IS an arrest and custody. If you think otherwise, just try to drive off. You will be charged with "resisting arrest and flight from custody." i have seen people charged with it, and you are disingenuous if you claim otherwise. You are also wrong about the questions: they are specific interrogations related to a crime or suspicion of committing a crime. Any time an answer given to a cop can be used against you in a court of law, it is part of an interrogation.

@RandyC: You suspect that an officer testifying to your "willingness to cooperate" would be inadmissible, but it is used in nearly every court in this country. It absolutely has an enormous effect on the convictions and the time given when convicted. I've sat in a courtroom a few times as an observer, and saw it myself. I have seen prosecutors urge the juries and judges to consider the defendant's cooperation with the police or lack of it, actually, to be used as part of their deliberations. I have heard a prosecutor urge a jury with these words: "Why would he have refused to talk to the police and demand an attorney if he WASN'T guilty of the charges?" The defense naturally objected, and was quickly overruled. He was found guilty, and the judge cited the man's refusal to "voluntarily cooperate" as evidence of his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his crimes. Judge may have been wrong, but unless that defendant had or has thousands of dollars to pay for an appeal, who is going to know? Public defenders either don't do appeals, or do them so badly to be a waste of time.

Problem is, justice is only for those who have the money to hire the right attorneys. There are numerous studies of the measurable gross disparity in conviction and sentencing based solely on the defendant's financial status, even when race is completely removed form the equations. In fact, one study even said that race was NOT a reliable factor, when the money aspect was included. They only reason race was a factor was because the minorities just also happened to be the overwhelmingly poorer defendants. The problem is that the prosecution has unlimited financial and legal resources to prosecute, and the public defender is given a few hundred dollars.

And I also take exception to the whole DWB attitude. Black people who do NOT look like thugs or drug dealers aren't pulled over any more than anyone else. The thing should be DWLLC - Driving While Looking Like a Criminal. Don't misunderstand: I don't support suspicion based on looks alone, but I've known cops who readily admit that they are most likely to stop someone based on the look of the person exclusive of his race. In other words, the white guy in the Camaro with fully tinted windows will get pulled over before the black guy in a Taurus without tint.

Posted by Greg - Florida on June 30, 2009:

And in light of this overwhelming content that convictions are gained in this abusive, albeit illegal, manner, we use the conviction data to deny qualified people employment and, thus, an honest livelihood. As long as society, read it as a jury, allows this abuse of its citizens, they deserve the outcome. When we wrongly convict, we get wrong as a result. I think justice is about how to rectify a wrong, not how to perpetuate it.

Sadly, I now understand the reason some rap songs contain "cop killer" lyrics and why the songs include them as often as they do.

It's one thing to actually be guilty of committing a crime, it's quite another to be convicted of a crime because you exercised your constitutional right to council. A case should be immediately dismissed and a mistrial called when one's exercise of a constitutional right is exposed because it has significant prejudicial effect--just like the prosecution wants.

Posted by Ian Harrison on June 30, 2009:

In case Louie from Georgia or anyone else is interested in what the Supreme Court Said in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).

In Doyle, the Court held that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits impeachment on the basis of a defendant's silence following Miranda warnings. The case involved two defendants who made no post-arrest statements about their involvement in the crime. Both defendants in Doyle testified at trial that they had been framed. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked the defendants why they had not told the frameup story to the police upon their arrest. The court considered this prosecutorial practice fundamentally unfair in the face of the accused's right to remain silent. this is a link to the decision: http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/610/case.html

As a footnote, exercising your right to be silent is not the same as talking and then exercising your right or exercising your right and then talking. Under certain circumstances, those items may be commented on.

As for DWB - just speak to the children (usually male children) of well off African Americans who let these children drive their Mercedes.

Posted by Bergman, Seattle WA on June 30, 2009:

Louie Wrote:
> He was found guilty, and the judge cited the man's refusal
> to "voluntarily cooperate" as evidence of his unwillingness
> to accept responsibility for his crimes.

The problem with this, is that if you are, in fact, innocent of the crime, then why should you show remorse for it? For that matter, if you visibly act guilty on the stand, it would tend to convict you, not the other way around.

---

Your reaction is logical, but logic is out the window when an innocent person is convicted. Indeed the "lack of remorse" is a problem, and how can one feel remorse for something they didn't do? Quite the Catch-22. -rc

Posted by Karen - Nebraska on July 3, 2009:

Your article about not talking to the police is a great idea and I agree with most of the points you made. There is one big exception to this rule - that is when approached by a child services worker. Should you exercise your right to remain silent then you will find yourself in the middle of a nightmare. Your child(ren) gone, social workers deciding your ability to parent and, an adventure through 'the system'.

---

I actually can't think of a better time to use a lawyer, either. -rc