Police Misconduct

Activist Post

Chicago Investigator Blows Whistle on Corrupt Police Review Board

A former investigator with Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority has filed a lawsuit claiming that he was fired for refusing to produce false reports regarding officers accused of misconduct.

Lorenzo Davis began working with Chicago’s Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) in 2008 as an investigator after 23 years with the Chicago Police Department. By July 2010, he was promoted to supervising investigator before moving up to deputy chief administrator in October 2011 and finally, chief administrator in February 2014.

Courthouse News reports

As his boss, Davis says, “Ando began ordering plaintiff to change his sustained findings of police misconduct … in favor of the accused officers.”

He claims that Ando and Mitchell told him “to change the content of his investigative reports to more favorably reflect upon the accused officers’ conduct or to discredit the victim or witnesses.”

He wasn’t the only one, Davis says: “Ando and Mitchell also ordered other IPRA investigators to change the contents of their investigative reports and change their ultimate findings from sustained to not sustained, unfounded or exonerated.”

The IPRA was originally formed in 2007 to investigate other accusations of police corruption and misconduct. Unfortunately, the agency has itself been the subject of misconduct and corruption. In fact, in December 2015, Ando resigned from his position as head of the IPRA just as it was announced that the U.S. Department of Justice would begin an investigation into the CPD. The IPRA’s reputation has become so tarnished that in early April, the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune wrote, “the IPRA and its reputation are beyond repair. The way forward is clear: Blow it up. Start over.”

Only weeks ago Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced plans to completely end the IPRA in favor of a “new civilian investigative agency that has more independence and more resources to do its work.” Emanuel’s plan mimics a report from the Police Accountability Task Force, organized by Emanuel after the death of Laquan McDonald, which calls for the creation of a new review board. According to the Better Government Association, between 2010 and 2014 Chicago police shot 240 people, killing 70.

Both the Chicago Police Department and the IPRA are under fire for corruption, abuse, and possible criminal behavior. At this point the idea that the Mayor (another representative of the establishment) could realistically root out the poison that seems to infected the core of the Chicago Police Department is preposterous. All of these bureaucracies exist to sustain themselves and to subvert the will of the people. This is because these institutions are dependent on the people for funding (stolen via taxation) and ultimately serve the will of the State.

Imagine what would happen if our communities started organizing against these violent criminals and peacefully prevented the murder of our people? It’s time to start having those conversations.

Image Credit

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Derrick is available for interviews.

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Advertisements

Pesky Details in the Grazzini-Rucki Case

Twitter
 

Dakota County Discredited Again!

April 13, 2016 | UPDATED: 4 days ago

A former defense attorney jailed for weeks on the subsequently dropped charge that he set his girlfriend on fire — resulting in international news coverage, including a Taiwanese cartoon casting him as a maniac — has filed a federal lawsuit against the law enforcement agencies involved.

David John Gherity (Photo courtesy of Dakota County Sheriff's Office)
David John Gherity (Photo courtesy of Dakota County Sheriff’s Office)

The suit, filed in federal court in St. Paul last week on behalf of David J. Gherity, 62, and his then-girlfriend Joan Isabella, accuses Burnsville police and Dakota County Attorney’s Office of violating Gherity’s constitutional rights.

It also names two investigators who worked for the department during the 2014 case, along with chief Eric Gieseke and the Hennepin County Medical Center, where Isabella received treatment after the fire.

The suit alleges unlawful arrest and confinement and violation of the “protected liberty interest in his (Gherity’s) good name.” It further alleges the agencies hid evidence, manipulated witness statements and kept Gherity in jail knowing he was innocent.

Joseph E. Flynn, an attorney representing the city of Burnsville, responded, “We find the claims to be completely unfounded, and we will be addressing the specific claims with the actual facts in court.”

Flynn added that Gherity’s arrest was based on “compelling statements of the victim, forensic evaluation and interviews of numerous witnesses. The investigation was thorough, complete and timely, and we had probable cause to proceed with the arrest.”

The Dakota County attorney’s office declined comment.

In February 2014, firefighters were called to the Burnsville condominium where Gherity and Isabella lived, and found Isabella sitting at a table with burns on her head and face, neck and legs.

Gherity, 62, was charged in April 2014 in Dakota County District Court with first-degree assault and two counts of first-degree arson. He was arrested and held in jail from April 2 until May 30 of that year, according to the suit; charges against him were dropped on June 13.

Read More:http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/13/former-defense-attorney-sues-burnsville-police-dakota-county/

Good Cops, Bad Cops

Start at 26:19

Corrupt Lakeville Police Forced To Admit “Clerical Error” Is Bald-Faced Lie In Rigged Case

Lion News

Friday, March 25, 2016

Corrupt Lakeville Police Forced To Admit “Clerical Error” Is Bald-Faced Lie In Rigged Case No. 19HA-CR-15-2669 State Of Minnesota VS. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki? Sandra’s Osceola County Documents Prove That Corrupt Lakeville Police Lied To U.S. Marshals, Don’t They? Lying To A Federal Marshal Is Criminal Act, Isn’t It? (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 – Lying to Government Agents) More Proof Corrupt Lakeville Police Break The Law To Enforce The Law, Right?
A lowly public data request has showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the corrupt Lakeville police lied to the U.S. Marshals in rigged Case No. 19HA-CR-15-2669 State Of Minnesota VS. Sandra Grazzin-Rucki, hasn’t it? It has, hasn’t it?

An Osceola County charging affidavit for Grazzini-Rucki lists a handwritten charge of kidnapping beneath typed depravation of custodial rights charges. Polinski said the charges are depravation of parental rights; conceal minor, take minor from parent and take minor, no court order. He said the kidnapping charge is probably a clerical error. Grazzini-Rucki will not fight extradition to Minnesota By Laura Adelmann, Sun This Week Published October 22, 2015 at 10:32 am.

Osceola Co. 2

The corrupt Lakeville police made the wild and outrageous claims to the U.S. Marshals that Sandra was wanted for “Kidnapping,” didn’t they? They did, didn’t they? And that is why Sandra ended up in in Osceola County jail instead of a federal lock-up, right? It is, isn’t it? Must be why the U.S. Marshals didn’t issue a press release about Sandra’s arrest, huh? Lying to the feds is a federal offense, isn’t it? It is, isn’t it?

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally (a)  Except as otherwise provided in  this  section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,  legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1)  falsifies,  conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document  knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5  years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap47-sec1001.pdf

Continue Reading: http://lionnews00.blogspot.com/2016/03/lakeville-police-forced-to-admit.html

Minnesota’s DWI Test Refusal

Just Saying No: The Limits of Warrantless Searches

A case involving Minnesota’s DWI test refusal statute could yield a major 4th Amendment decision from the United States Supreme Court

0216-Police-DWIMinnesota is one of a handful of U.S. states that have criminalized the refusal to submit to a warrantless search in suspected DUI cases. This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will review a Minnesota case as it determines whether states can make refusing to submit to a warrantless search a criminal act.

Minnesota is in the national spotlight, and in a very big way. This term we expect the United States Supreme Court to issue a major decision regarding the scope of the 4th Amendment warrant requirement, and the Court is using a Minnesota case to reach its decision: Bernard v. Minnesota.

It was the signed confession from a suspected rapist in Arizona that led the Court to issue its watershed decision regarding coerced confessions in Miranda v. Arizona.1 It was Illinois’ decision to relentlessly interrogate a suspected murderer for over 14 hours, while repeatedly denying his attorney’s demands to be present, that led the Court to issue its watershed decision regarding the right to counsel in Escobedo v. Illinois.2 When North Carolina went looking for a weapon used in a reported rape, and claimed that they found it during a “consensual” search despite the fact that the homeowner had been told that she had no right to refuse the search, the Court took the opportunity to reject “consensual” searches in the face of bald claims of lawful authority. That one was Bumper v. North Carolina.3

Why is a Minnesota case drawing such scrutiny from the Supreme Court? Bernard is a case about a drunk driver who refused to submit to an in-custody, warrantless search of his breath. Minnesota, not content to use the fact of his refusal against him as “consciousness of guilt” evidence at trial (something permitted since South Dakota v. Neville4), went one step further and criminalized the very act of refusing to submit to a warrantless search. This term, the Supreme Court is going to answer one broad question and one narrow one. The broad one is simply “can the states make refusing to submit to a warrantless search a criminal act?” The narrow question is closely tied to Minnesota’s (latest) rationale for claiming our test refusal crime is constitutional, and involves treating a breath alcohol concentration test as a “search incident to arrest” and therefore a search that is unprotected by the 4th Amendment.

Continue Reading: http://mnbenchbar.com/2016/02/warrantless-searches/

Lawless America

Below is the unedited video filmed for Lawless America…The Movie. The comments are those of the subject.

Walter Burien – Lawless America – Congressional Testimony