Michael Tabman's Blog: Crime Scene, page 5

Fake Cops - Be Alert, Be Safe

Recently in the Denver area, a woman was sexually assaulted by two individuals who presented themselves as police officers. They drove a vehicle with emergency lights and wore police style uniforms. A second, similar incident occurred near-by, though the woman escaped assault.

Fake cops are not new. When I was a cop in the 1980s, we experienced a fake cop, dressed in one of our uniforms stopping women and assaulting them. The question then arises of how to protect yourself from fake cops without exacerbating a situation when real police officers pull you over.

As always, trust your gut. In the second incident noted above, the woman did not cooperate, and did not open her door. She felt that the individual did not appear to be a real police officer, though wearing a police-type shirt. When she began to dial her cell phone for help, the would-be assailant fled. In these situations, your cell phone is your greatest weapon. Keep it handy. If you are stopped by a police officer and have any concerns to his legitimacy, call 911, and the dispatcher will confirm whether or not the police officer is a real police officer. When you pull over, keep your doors locked, open the window only slightly and keep the car in “drive” with your foot on the brake. If it becomes apparent that the cop is fake, and you are in danger, you can quickly flee. If you are unsure, tell the officer that you are calling 911 to confirm who he is. A real police officer will understand. Be careful not to reach under your seat or make any motion to give the officer reason to fear for his safety.

If you do not have a cell phone and you are suspicious when you are pulled over, using the same precautions, ask the officer to call for another police officer in a marked vehicle. If all that fails and you have doubt, tell the officer that you will continue to drive to a more populated area, ideally a police station, fire station or other area where an assault will be deterred. As well, if you are being cited for only a traffic violation, there is no reason for the police officer to order you out of the vehicle. Most often, the officer prefers that you remain in the vehicle while he writes the ticket.

The same precautions should be used when an officer arrives at your home. If there is doubt, call 911 and confirm before opening the door. If approached on the street by a plain-clothes cop, do not be convinced by the display of a badge and gun, and do not leave with anyone asking you to do so; confirm his identity and/or demand uniformed officers first arrive. If the police want to talk to you, you can meet them at the police station. Remember, we are not discussing resisting a legal arrest.

As always: stay alert, stay safe and trust your gut.

Time for Professional Juries?

First, it was the OJ Trial. Recently, it was the Casey Anthony Trial. Both of these high profile murder trials resulted in acquittals that created tremendous debate, hostility and even threats of violence directed at the jurors. Being a juror is a tough job. So tough, most of us go to great lengths to avoid jury service.

In addition to the personal sacrifices of time away from your job and home, being a juror, and holding the future, perhaps deciding between life and death, of another human being is an awesome responsibility. Understanding the laws and applying them appropriately is just as difficult. The application of complex legal processes is not easily learned on the job; nor is understanding the legal maneuvering, game playing and theatrics that we have witnessed in these trials. Yet, we have no patience, no compassion and no appreciation for a jury, who in the course of doing their duty to the best of their ability, does not decide the way we think they should have.

We know what should have been decided.We would have done better. Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy.

We must respect the jury and be grateful that the accused have their day in court and are tried by a jury of their peers. But maybe it is time to consider that the average citizen who is chosen to sit on a jury is not necessarily qualified to do so. Reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence, mode of death vs. cause of death, credibility, and a multitude of other legal definitions and concepts require formal education, such as what is provided in law school. A few minutes of instruction form a judge does not suffice.

So what is the answer? I propose a professional jury system. Jurors should be trained in all aspects of our justice system. If they come to a trial with a firm grasp of the legal definitions, standards and concepts to which they will be exposed, they will be better equipped to make a fair and legal decision. What would be the arguments against a professional jury system?

One argument is that a professional jury is not a jury of your peers. I do not think formal training for average citizens disqualifies them as a jury of your peers. The next argument would be that jurors who are paid by the State, have a conflict of interest – they are State employees and be biased in favor of the State. I disagree. Judges are paid by the State; they do not (or should not have a bias). Public Defenders are paid with State funds, yet their job is to defend their client as any attorney should. A professional jury, knowledgeable of the law, exposed to a variety of trials and legal strategies would be less likely to be distracted by irrelevant or prejudicial information and render fair decisions for both criminal and civil trials.

Professional jurors would alleviate the problems associated with calling people for jury duty. Jobs would be created. While creating and administering such a system is not without its challenges, I think it is worth the effort. Police Officers, Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys and Judges all go through extensive training before they are allowed act officially and affect your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Why shouldn’t juries?

Michael Tabman

New Weapon Against Terrorism?

This blog is based upon the following article: http://www.newser.com/article/d9ohu5f...

Abdulhakim Muhammad was not happy that he was going on trial for capital murder. He did not deny the charge. He confessed to killing one soldier and wounding another when he opened fire on an Army recruiting station. The State of Arkansas, not the federal government will try him.

What was Muhammad’s complaint? Muhammad has stated that, “This case should be in federal or military court.” Apparently, Muhammad fancies himself as a terrorist who has attacked the United States. He wants the pomp and ceremony that our system seems to bestow upon actual, aspiring and ne’er-do-well terrorists. With the “terrorist” label, they become the center of attention, have a forum for their anti-America rhetoric and, at least in their own eyes, become idols of those who want to be like them. Muhammad’s perspective is not without some merit. We play into it.

Even the most inept attempts at a terrorist attack become media darlings, for at least a short time. The life and times of an otherwise unknown individual becomes the subject of profilers end terrorism experts. Their methods – or attempted methods – set in motion a new array of intrusive law enforcement tactics. The politics of fear consume us.

We are keenly aware that Osama Bin Laden thrived on his media exposure. The Unabomber Ted Kaczynski lived in isolation, which probably helped him avoid detection for so long. But, he too needed attention and recognition. He mailed his “manifesto” to several newspapers demanding publication. Ultimately, and perhaps ironically, it was the publication of his manifesto that led to his arrest.

But, what if we did not give each terrorist act so much attention, almost to the point of admiration? What if we did not analyze them, their lives and their beliefs? What if we did not promulgate fear and begin flexing more governmental muscle. What if we kept doing what we should be doing – investigating, stopping and arresting terrorist, but quietly. No big press conferences, no media spotlight on the terrorists, no discussion of what drove them to this point.

What if we just ignored them, what they did and what they stood for? Maybe wannabe terrorists such as Abdulhakim Muhammad would not find terrorism so alluring. Is it worth a try?

Use of GPS by FBI and spouses: Legal or Invasion of Privacy?

The use of GPS tracking on vehicles has been in the news recently as two separate cases have come under scrutiny. The first case occurred in New Jersey where a woman installed a GPS on a vehicle she owned with her husband. She tracked his travels to confirm her suspicions of his infidelity. The court ruled this was legal. While most of the news coverage highlighted that this was a matrimonial matter, the ruling was based on the fact that the husband’s movement was tracked only while he was on public streets, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Considering my earlier blogs about people getting arrested for videotaping cops, interestingly, the court’s decision in this case included the following: There is no liability under this tort theory "for observing [a plaintiff] or even taking his [or her] photograph while he [or she] is walking on a public highway, since he [or she] is not then in seclusion, and his [or her] appearance is public and open to the public eye."

The next case involves the FBI placing a similar GPS device on a 20 year old student who is a US citizen, without a warrant. The Supreme Court will decide whether a warrant is required for such monitoring. Generally, the law has allowed this, if the installation occurred in a public place (i.e. the FBI did not sneak on to private property) and tracked the vehicle while it was on a public street, consistent with the court’s decision mentioned above. I recall using these devices when a vehicle would enter into a garage or other private area. At that point, we would stop monitoring the device and rely on physical surveillance.

While these two cases are similar, there is one important distinction. One involves only private citizens; the other involves the government acting against a private individual.

While tracking a vehicle on public streets is not as intrusive as wiretaps and other forms of surveillance, I think the government should be required to get a warrant. Government surveillance activities apparently are becoming more aggressive and frequent. I think a few checks and balances would be consistent with our system of justice and our reasonable expectations of privacy.

What do you think?

The Perp Walk - Walking a Thin Line?

Recently, a New York City Councilman took issue with what is known as the “Perp Walk.” The Perp Walk is when the police parade an arrested suspect in front of the media. The issue is whether this process violates the Constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence. The theory that a person in handcuffs, surrounded by cops, and at times appearing disheveled and unclean, exudes an appearance of guilt – and does that prejudice spill over to the trial. There is no clear data to indicate whether or not the Perp Walk effects the trial, but is it the right thing to do?

Again, we look back at we discussed in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrest. Have we become a society of presuming guilt based solely on an accusation? Does the Perp Walk play into that unsettling tendency?

Let’s first distinguish between the Perp Walk and freedom of the press. During my career, I have been photographed and videotaped arresting people. The press filmed this after learning that we were executing arrest warrants at various locations. I have never participated in a cooperative effort with the press to give them exclusive access to photograph an arrestee.

You may expect that as a career law enforcement officer, I would support the Perp Walk. I do not. However, I also never interfered with the press taking pictures. As I have stated in my previous blogs, a law enforcement officer, in public, acting in his official capacity has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Unfortunately, for the arrestee, he also has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Just as I could not shield myself from being photographed, I could not shield the arrestee. I distinguish between cops being filmed in the course of their duties as opposed to cops cooperating with the press to give them exclusive access to those under arrest. I believe the latter is an invasion of privacy and an abuse of power.

Television shows in which law enforcement and media partner up are immensely popular. That speaks volumes to our voyeuristic tendencies. I risk being on the unpopular side of this discussion, however, I do not like shows in which the media and police team up and arrest people for entertainment. I realize that many of the individuals are caught committing illegal and distasteful acts. However, I prefer that law enforcement stick to law enforcement. They are not in the business of increasing a network’s ratings. Law enforcement’s intent can be put into serious question when the cops become part of the entertainment.

Let the press do what the press does. What they report and how they report it will be guided by appropriate laws and industry ethics. Let the cops do what cops do – enforce the law with no other motivation or intent.

Please share your thoughts.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Midnight Sin: Parallels?

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was arrested with great fanfare, grabbed off an international flight moments before take-off to his homeland of France. His arrest came after a New York hotel maid alleged that he had raped her. News articles described how he was naked when he attacked her, that he may have been hiding in his room stalking his prey. Bloody sheets were found. He tried to seduce other hotel employees. He was charged on May 15, 2011. Under intense public pressure, on May 18, 2011 Strauss-Kahn announced that he would resign from his position with the IMF, thus derailing his political career and aspirations to run for President of France.

By mid June, things had changed. Strauss-Kahn’s accuser was herself being accused of being a prostitute, of having lied about a gang rape in her native land and having lied about some of the events surrounding the Strauss-Kahn accusation. On June 30, I read reports that the case against Strauss-Kahn was about to be dropped. Then today, July 7, I read that prosecutors do not have immediate plans to drop charges.

The arrest of Strauss-Kahn appears to have been appropriate, based upon probable cause. Even if the information provided to police is later found to be false, probable cause is determined by what is known and/or believed to be true at the time. But, because information may later be proven incorrect or deliberately fabricated, allegations must not equal conviction. At the same time, the human foibles or previous transgressions of the accuser does not mean that the accuser is lying. So how do we balance the presumption of innocence against a credible accusation?

Our system of justice provides for that, at least in theory. An arrest, while undeniably traumatic, must be nothing more than a formal processing of charges and assuring the accused does not flee. When a person is held before trial, that person is entitled to fair and humane treatment, shielded from harm and accorded the dignity of a person presumed to be innocent. As well, the accuser must recognize that he/she will be subject to scrutiny. That also must be done professionally and discreetly. If the accused is found to be guilty or the accuser found to have provided false information, then punishment should be meted out, but not before.

Strauss-Kahn should not have been pressured to resign before the matter was adjudicated. This is not the first time someone has suffered irreversible harm without having been convicted. We jump to conclusions, then we jump to other conclusions as the wind changes. When emotions are running high we put on blinders and tunnel vision sets in.

The backdrop of my novel, Midnight Sin, is a serial rape investigation. Without giving away the story, I can tell you that you will find yourself in the middle of allegations, insinuations and assumptions. I have spoken to readers who were so sure that they “figured it out” that they missed some small, but very important details. What happens when you assume?

Big day for Casey Anthony Murder Trial Defense

Today is big for the Casey Anthony defense strategy. So far, the defense strategy has been interesting and a bit exciting, even surprising. But has it been effective? Not being in the courtroom makes it hard to gauge its impact upon the jury.

Yesterday, the defense resumed its attack on George Anthony, Casey’s dad. Allegations that he molested Casey, his suicide attempt and now a possible admission of Caylee’s accidental death to a woman, the defense claims was George’s mistress. Those are a lot of allegations against a man who is not on trial. Yet, that is a legitimate defense strategy – get the jury to suspect someone other than the person on trial. This strategy, in this case, has been high risk with questionable results. The defense is “beating up” George, but is that really putting doubt in to the mind of the jurors as to the allegations against Caylee.

Everything will come down to credibility. Did the jury believe George? Did the jury feel bad for George after the defense attacked him? If so, that will not help Casey’s defense.

Krystal Holloway, George’s mistress, is now testifying. She claimed that during a relationship with George, George acknowledged that Caylee’s death was an accident. Once again, it will come down to her credibility – will the jury believe her? She just admitted to getting $40,000 to sell her story.

The big question remains – will Casey testify? The legal gurus have been debating this. This would be the highest risk they can take. Casey has already provided inconsistent statements to the police. Cindy’s (Casey’s mother) testimony, which would have benefitted Casey, did not come off as credible (I am not saying that she lied; only that she did not sound credible). Casey would have to explain her “partying” while her daughter was missing. I do not think calling Casey to testify would be the correct call for the defense. I would be surprised if they do. But, this defense has already had surprises.

What will Whitey Bulger say?

There was quite a media buzz surrounding the arrest of aging mobster Whitey Bulger. His story is one of those mob stories that we cannot get enough of. Tipped off about his impending arrest, 16 years ago by an FBI Agent, he went on the lam. And there he remained until his recent capture. We were just as fascinated when Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympics Bomber eluded capture for more than five years, to be found living in the woods.

Word has it, that Bulger has been “talking” to the FBI. But, what is he saying? Bulger probably knows where the skeletons are buried literally and figuratively. He is suspected of being involved in 19 murders. There is no statute of limitations for homicide. Bulger is also wanted for an array of other serious crimes. I assure you, some ambitious FBI Agents are licking their chops in anticipation of some impressive prosecutions.

But, why would Bulger tell the authorities anything?

One of the biggest motivators for any criminal to talk would be in exchange for something – usually to drop charges or some accommodation relative to incarceration.
Given Bulger’s violent history, the charges pending against him, and 16 years on the run, I would guess that there is not much room for negotiating his prosecution.

However, if Bulger has the information everyone seems to think he has, the FBI would want to get that, so I expect there may be some horse-trading. However, complicating that is the fact that Bulger was an FBI informant, supposedly cooperating with the FBI – we all know how that went.

Why else may Bulger talk? For one, even a hardened mobster enjoys attention and has an ego. Having spent the last 16 years in hiding, and now with nowhere to go, Bulger may enjoy being the center of so much attention. And, he may have a few axes to grind. There is also speculation that Bulger will disclose damaging information about the FBI and their part in protecting him. I have no personal knowledge of this case, but I doubt that there was or is any wide-spread corruption within the FBI that assisted Bulger. We know that there was at least one bad FBI Agent. That happens. In my first book, Walking the Corporate Beat, when discussing risk, I refer to the more than one occasion that an FBI agent found himself in trouble over his relationship with an informant. Informants are high risk – high reward.

I am sure you are asking yourself how the FBI found itself in a close working relationship with a mobster. Referring back to my blog of June 18, 2011, the fact is that the FBI and police must develop informants – and those informants are going to be mobsters, drug dealers, gang members and other nasty people who have the information the cops need. The problem occurs when the cops and FBI become so anxious for good information, they put blinders on and see only what they want to see.

Did Freedom of the Press Prevail?

In my blog dated June 23, 2011, I spoke about the arrest of a woman for videotaping police officers. As I stated, I did not see how that action rose to the level of obstruction of governmental administration, which was the offense for which she was arrested. I predicted that the charges would probably be dropped.

Fortunately, today it was reported that the District Attorney declined prosecution. For the reasons stated in my initial blog, I am not surprised. But what happens now?

The police department will conduct an internal investigation. There will be pressure to make an adverse finding against this police officer. While the arrest was unwarranted, and the officer will probably receive some form of discipline, I hope that the officer is not fired and his career is not forever ruined. Why?

While the officer was wrong, I believe a major factor was a lack of training. This issue (arrests for videotaping)is not a new one, and the police department (and every police department) should be adequately training its officers. As well, it did not appear that any other officer was questioning the arrest. This officer was not a “hot head” who immediately overreacted and became physically abusive. He did try to resolve the matter with verbal warnings. The officer’s actions must be viewed in toto.

When I speak to corporate clients, I stress the importance of the corporate environment and how it will affect every employee. A police department is no different. This police department will need to make appropriate amends to the wrongfully arrested citizen and enact internal changes to assure this does not happen again. I hope they do not make this officer a scapegoat.

Acknowledge our mistakes, assure they are not repeated, make appropriate compensation and move on…

Arrest for videotaping - again

This blog is based upon this story: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_new...


Referring back to my blog of June 11, 2011, I noted the disturbing trend of cops arresting people for videotaping them. In this instance, the woman was charged for obstructing governmental administration. The cops apparently did not like her standing on her lawn taping them, claiming they were concerned for their safety. Police officers have every right to control a situation in which they are conducting their official business and want to assure their safety. This does not appear to be one of those situations. A crowd usually does form around police activity, and the police must deal with that reality. They rarely arrest everyone just for watching. This incident did not involve a crowd, and did not appear very threatening.

I am curious as to how this case will be resolved. I will not be surprised if it is not prosecuted. But, that will not undo the experience of being arrested.

We are in need of clear guidance and laws on the rights of individuals under these circumstances. As a former cop, I understand a police officer’s need to maintain a safe environment. However, that cannot be the premise for prohibiting activities (i.e. being taped) that the police simply do not like.