Fresno County Sheriff Mims provides her own example.

The Fresno Bee reports today that Mims has decided to join the growing list of California cops who say, “Fuck what the voters want.  This is my county!”

Mims trots out the old “pot dispensaries are magnets for crime” stories.  Makes sense…to those who already feel that regardless of the fact that modern medicine has finally started to catch up with what people have known for over 5000 years, they want none of it.  Medical marijuana is, for those who rely on it, a godsend.  But the mythology that started the War on Drugs doesn’t care about that.  And Mims, who almost certainly has a money motive in keeping the War alive, will have none of that, either.

This post is not about the medicinal qualities of marijuana.  Frankly, I don’t want to write an article long enough to cover all the benefits of natural remedies over the more-profitable, more-dangerous, artificial ones drug companies insist upon.  Besides, while I do defend medical marijuana growers and therefore read quite a lot of marijuana law, I don’t use it.  So I can’t speak about the benefits from my own experience.  I only know that an increasing number of studies show that marijuana has for decades now been cloaked in so many lies that it’s hard for uneducated people to know about the thousands of years of positive history humanity has had with the plant.

The potroversy, though, does provide further insight into the way cops think.

Sheriff Mims — as she has done so many times before — reminds us that getting her way is much more important than doing her job.  Her job, of course, is to enforce the law.  Mims wants none of that.  California voters approved medical marijuana?  Over her dead body!, she tell us.  Why, they’re goddamn “magnets for crime.”

Frankly, if that were true, I’d think her and her donut-chomping lackeys would appreciate them more.  They already refuse to respond to crimes on the basis that they just don’t have time for that.  So, if pot dispensaries are such crime magnets, why not just set up a few county-run dispensaries, park a cruiser out front and then hold press conferences each week to pat yourself on the back when you arrest all the magnetized criminals irresistibly drawn to your location?

Of course, it’s not really that easy.

Because Sheriff Mims is lying.

Dispensaries are no more magnets for crime than are stores that sell alcohol.  Or groceries.  The story in which Mims was quoted notes that there have been two crimes committed involving dispensaries in the last month.  Two whole crimes!  (Well, one wasn’t 100% “whole” since the attempted robbery failed when the dispensary owner ducked into a closet.)

How many convenience stores have been robbed in that same time period?  How many grocery stores?  As I recall, someone tried to rob a SaveMart about a week or so ago.  That’s a large chain store!  Banks?  Now there are some magnets for crime!  ATM thefts, bank robberies, you name it.  Is Sheriff Mims lobbying to shut any of them down?

Nope.

But that’s not the only reason I know Sheriff Mims is lying.  And it’s also not just because her lips are moving.  I know Sheriff Mims is lying because she admitted as much herself:

Mims said her office has not examined how much crime has been reported at and around dispensaries. But she said she also is troubled by law-enforcement reports that marijuana grown illegally on public land has been bought by dispensaries.

Sheriff Mims doesn’t know how much crime has been reported at or around dispensaries. But don’t pay attention to that.  She’s troubled by “law-enforcement reports.”

So am I.  I’m troubled by law-enforcement reports — including those to the ever-gullible Fresno Police Cheerleaders Gazette Bee, which wouldn’t know an investigative reporter, or a critical thinker, if one walked in and bit the editor on the ass.  I’m troubled by law enforcement reports which contain more lies than truth.  Even the ones that don’t exist, like those Sheriff Mims made up for the Bee.

Did a law enforcement officer find a dispensary that bought pot that was grown illegally?

Then why didn’t they arrest the people — at least the owners — at the dispensary?  Why didn’t they trot them out in front of reporters, instead of made-up stories about invisible magnets?

California has two primary sets of laws controlling the growth, transportation, distribution and use of medical marijuana.  The Compassionate Use Act and California Senate Bill 420, known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act. Neither allows medical marijuana dispensaries to possess or distribute marijuana grown illegally.  Medical marijuana law in California allows certain individuals and collectives to grow marijuana legally.  Dispensaries can — and do — obtain their marijuana from such sources.

But that won’t satisfy the likes of Sheriff Mims.  She doesn’t like pot.  She won’t support the laws of the State of California.  She doesn’t give a damn whether they’re passed by the voters, or the California legislature. And she doesn’t care if she has to lie to convince you how terrible marijuana dispensaries are, because she just “knows.”

That’s how cops think.

Comments

• June 10, 2011, ajtree writes: I feel that Fresno Sheriff ROBBED a pharmacy. It is only a state law so it seems there will be no real recourse. The feds are not invilved, but they should be even if it is just a state law that is not fed sanction law. I feel a lot less safe from so called law enforcement, and fearful of vigelante with state funds.

Related posts:

• Bad Cop, uh…Bad Cop
• Born-Again Defense Evangelist, Police Chief Jerry Dyer
• When The Pot Calls The Kettle…

Staying with the theme of apologies, I should apologize for treating this blog like the poor step-child.  As my regular readers will know, I have another law blog, Probable Cause: The Legal Blog with the Really Low Standard of Review. Partly because I like the name of the blog better — what more reason do I need? — and partly because it was intended to be more generic while this one has a regional focus, I tend to pay more attention to that blog.  It shows, too: the readership there is more than six times greater than here!

Enough of the apologies.  Well, mine, anyway….

The Fresno Bee today provides more than enough material for a Fresno-based criminal defense lawyer blog.  We have (more) officers shooting Fresnans, an ex-Fresno police officer on trial complaining because his fellow officers refused to help him beat the crap out of citizens and Sheriff Mims once again made the front page over her inability to properly manage the budget for her department.

As to that last story, there will be no apologies.  Not from Mims, anyway.  You see, it’s not really her fault.

Mims said she followed a recommendation by county administrators to raise projections for federal inmate revenue, because she had underestimated that revenue in the past.  The need to cut now shows her past practice made sense, she said.

[County Administrative Officer John] Navarrette said she was never advised to raise her projections, and that her office provides all of its own budget projections.  (Brad Branan, “Mims anticipates layoffs” (January 8, 2010) The Fresno Bee, p. A4, col. 3-4.)

Someone’s lying, but no, no apologies from Mims.  She’s always been right and the fact that her budget projections were wrong this time proves it because her past practice of being wrong made sense.  If only people would quit questioning her judgment and just trust her.

Trust was also a problem for ex-Fresno police officer Marcus Tafoya, who was fired in 2007 and is currently on trial accused of using excessive force on people attending a party for a Marine returning from Iraq in 2005.  (The story indicates his 2007 firing was connected with the 2005 incident, though doesn’t mention why it took so long to get from the one point to the other.)

[Tafoya] also criticized some police officers for standing around when he needed help.  (Pablo Lopez, “Ex-officer tells his side in case: Fear led to use of baton, he testifies” (January 8, 2010) p. A3, col. 5.)

Tafoya is not lying.  This is a little-understood, but not uncommon, problem among police departments, particularly here in Fresno.  A bunch of officers are called to quell a disturbance at a party.  They show up — some with batons at the ready — and the partygoers gets the jump on one of the cops.  The rest stand around, doing nothing.  Mostly, it’s from being in shock.  The police aren’t used to getting into fights.  Well, maybe with their spouses. Maybe with each other. Maybe with themselves. Maybe even with criminals. But not with partygoers! And that was clearly the problem here:

Tafoya said he told Stockdale, “if they resist, beanbag them.”  [In other words, shoot them, at close range, with shotguns stuffed with beanbags.]  But Stockdale froze, Tafoya said.  “He didn’t do anything,” he said.

Tafoya said when he needed help, “a lot of officers stood around and did nothing.”  He figured a lot of them were in shock from what they witnessed.  He said he finally had to bark out orders: “Are you going to stand around or put your hands on somebody?” (Pablo Lopez, “Ex-officer tells his side in case: Fear led to use of baton, he testifies” (January 8, 2010) p. A3, col. 6.)

As I said, not uncommon.  Fresno police officers hate to have to put their hands on somebody.  (This may explain why they shoot so many Fresno citizens.)  Fresno police particularly hate to resort to violence when, as Tafoya says happened here, two fellow officers are overpowered by groups of people, one of whom is apparently trying to get one of the officer’s guns.

Confronting the crowd, Manfredi [Tafoya's partner] was knocked to the ground, and three to five people jumped on the sergeant, Tafoya said.  Armed with a police baton, Tafoya said he started to pull the men off Manfredi.  Then he heard panic in the sergeant’s voice: Someone was trying to get Manfredi’s gun.  (Pablo Lopez, “Ex-officer tells his side in case: Fear led to use of baton, he testifies” (January 8, 2010) p. A3, col. 6.)

Despite the fact someone was trying to grab his partner’s gun, Tafoya was calmed by the sound of police sirens.  (Little known fact: training for this begins at a very early age in cop families.  Specialized mini-sirens are attached to the cribs of their children to lull them to sleep.)  Tafoya’s calm didn’t last, however, because he realized the police were not going to help him beat the crap out of the partygoers.

At least they helped arrest Rebecca Rodriguez after she gave him probable cause by cursing and pushing him because he was unnecessarily hitting people with his baton.  Reading the story, I couldn’t help but wonder why this is what gave probable cause for an arrest when, according to Tafoya, partygoers had already been trying to beat him and take his partner’s gun.

Nevertheless, Tafoya’s partner backs him up.

Manfredi said he saw a couple of dozen people fighting in the front yard, and that he was punched in the face.

Manfredi said he fell and began struggling with a man, and that he felt his gun coming out of his holster.  (Dennis Hart, “Tafoya’s Partner Testifies in Fresno Trial” (date unknown) KMJNow (last visited January 8, 2010.))

Still, you have to wonder why the other officers didn’t.

Another thing to wonder about is how Fresno’s new Office of Independent Review will handle its first opportunity to strut some stuff.  Yep, Fresno police officers have shot another citizen.  The new Director and sole “employee” of that new Office is Eddie J. Aubrey, who brings an insider’s knowledge to the job with 14 years experience as a police officer — nine from that most pristine of police departments in Los Angeles.

Personally, I’m not at all concerned that Aubrey’s experience will color his judgment.  After all,

Aubrey said his responsibilities include, “seeing exactly what is going on, getting updates from the the officers, finding out what’s going on in the interviews, what’s stated in the interviews.”  (Jim Guy, Paula Lloyd and George Hostetter, “Fresno officer shoots suspect” (January 8, 2010) The Fresno Bee, p. A3, cols. 1-2.)

Besides, one of the officers who shot the man in the back said he “appeared to go for a weapon.”  He’s probably telling the truth.  After all, if the guy wasn’t doing anything wrong, the officers would have used a baton, or tried to shoot him with a bean-bag round.

At any rate, so long as veteran-police-officer Aubrey is getting updates from the police officers handling the investigation, I’ve no doubt that Fresno can rest easy.

And so long as Aubrey rubber stamps what Dyer said at the news conference, as he is expected to do, nobody will have to apologize.

Related posts:

• Apologies on a Delayed Post
• How Cops Think
• Bad Cop, uh…Bad Cop

Or increasingly, just Bad Cop.

Not All Cops Are Bad

At least a few readers will be up in arms over this post — particularly that last sentence.  To them, let me say this: I make no apologies.  As Scott Greenfield, a New York criminal defense lawyer said earlier today,

For those who are tired of hearing these negative stories about police officers, and assert that mere mortals like us can never understand the pressures of the brotherhood of self-proclaimed heroes, we need to persist nonetheless.  If we don’t keep this issue on the front burner, and if we don’t let cops know that we’re well aware of the fact that they are shameless liars when it suits them, it won’t end.  We just keep pounding away.

And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out in other posts, the fact that there are bad cops and that criminal defense lawyers try to bring that to the attention of the general public, so as to help encourage the bad guys to clean up their acts, does not mean that I think — or that anyone else engaged in this task thinks —all cops are bad.  We don’t think that and they aren’t.  Many — possibly even the majority — of law enforcement officers are actually good guys.  Heck, I even think some of those who do bad things are good guys.  After all, everyone makes mistakes.  And in the heat of the moment, or on the stand when they fear the case may fall apart if they answer me truthfully, I can’t even imagine how great the temptation must be.

But the fact of the matter is that law enforcement ranks have more than their fair share of people who have forgotten the point of the power they wield.  Their job is to protect and to serve the public and to protect and to serve the public in a particular way.

Bias Is An Occupational Hazard

Far too often all these points are forgotten.  Law enforcement officers can easily get caught up — as can we all, if we are not careful — overwhelmed by ennui from seeing so many bad things, so that everyone they encounter becomes, in some ways, a suspect.  And when I say that we are all susceptible of this, I mean it.  Sometimes, when spotting a police officer on the road while driving home, I have to check myself, to remind myself that I did not just spot a threat.  Because a world with no police officers would be an ugly world, indeed.

But don’t think that shoe doesn’t fit as well on an officer’s foot, either.  Let me give you an example.  I’m not going to go into any details here — I will only say that it did not happen within the city of Fresno.  Last night, a colleague of mine and I were working late together researching, discussing and writing motions.  A call came in from someone in an outlying community.  Law enforcement officers were at the home, not for the first time aggressively questioning the individual. The individual had been answering questions, but after becoming uncomfortable with the direction things seemed to be going, decided to call for advice, apparently while the police were taking a look around the property, before continuing.

What to do?

You Have the Right to Remain Silent: Use It!

Visitors to the main page of my main law practice site will have noticed a link about the first and most important thing to remember when being questioned by the police.  Any of them following the link could have viewed a 21-minute video of a police officer explaining why talking to the police is a bad idea.  Once the police focus in on you, there really is nothing you can do to help yourself.  And those aren’t just the words of Rick Horowitz, Fresno criminal defense attorney; those are the words of Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department speaking to a group of law students.

So naturally, my colleague and I endeavored to explain to the individual with whom we spoke that talking to the police was not in that individual’s best interests.

Suddenly, in the background, came a voice: “Who are you talking to?”  After the individual answered, the words, “A lawyer! You don’t want to get a lawyer involved in this.”

For obvious reasons, I’m being vague — not even providing the gender of the individual involved — but the point is that this scenario plays itself out every day in cities all over America, if not the world.  But in America, unless you’ve been classified as an enemy combatant, individuals are entitled to consult with counsel before talking to the authorities.

The reason isn’t “to allow criminals to go free,” either.  Police officers sometimes target the wrong people.  That seems to be the case with the individual discussed above.  And that individual is scared.  Never having been accused of, or convicted of, any significant crime in that individual’s life, the individual doesn’t know what to say, or how to act, to convince the officer he is innocent of the crime law enforcement currently believes the individual has committed.

And there is no way to do that.  The cops involved already believe the individual is guilty.

So what’s this got to do with bad cops, anyway? It will take a minute to explain this and I need to take a little detour, so bear with me.

Cops Aren’t Good Judges of Deception Versus Honesty

A study published in 2005 showed results which “have serious implications for the interrogation of innocent suspects and the judgments of their confessions to police investigators.”

Since confession evidence has the potential to be highly influential in court cases, the ability to distinguish between true and false confessions has become a crucial aspect of a police investigator’s job. This is especially important given recent research by Kassin and Fong (1999) indicating that police investigators who are trained to detect deception cues are actually less accurate, yet more confident, when distinguishing between truthful and deceptive statements than the average person.  (Kristine Fitzgerald, “The ability of police investigators to detect false confessions” (Spring 2006) Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services.)

The study and other articles I read on the subject speculate that one reason police investigators did worse than average people is the development of an investigator response bias.

Research suggests that the process of interrogation is persuasive, if not too persuasive, in part because it is explicitly based upon a presumption of guilt—an assumption that itself can set in motion a number of cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases.  (Christian A. Meissner and Saul M. Kassin, “‘He’s Guilty!’: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception” (2002) Law and Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, p. 469.)

In other words,

Our effect size analysis of the existing literature yielded an investigator bias effect, suggesting that training and prior experience lead to a perceptual bias toward judgments of deceit. (Christian A. Meissner and Saul M. Kassin, “‘He’s Guilty!’: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception” (2002) Law and Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, p. 473.  (Emphasis added.))

Ironically, while police interrogators turn out to be more biased and worse than non-police-interrogators at detecting truth versus deception, they also are more confident in their ability to make accurate judgments. (Fitzgerald, supra.)

Good Cops Honor the Constitution

So again, what does this have to do with bad cops?  The thing is, I have experience with this particular cop.  I’ve talked to him.  At least one of my readers should enjoy hearing that, yes, I have met him.  And this particular cop epitomizes the attitude discussed in the studies mentioned above.

But even if I didn’t know him, even if I hadn’t met him, even if I didn’t already mistrust his ability to be truthful, the studies above point up a justification for not trusting police officers who attempt to keep accused persons away from talking to lawyers.

The United States Constitution recognizes the right to remain silent.  Again, it doesn’t do this because our Founders thought that letting criminals go free was a good thing.  Unlike us, however, they understood the ways in which the power of the government could be used to coerce an individual to “provide” unreliable  information that could be hurtful to him.  They understood that this happens more often when government agents use their power to force someone to talk.

So, with apologies to my readers who think I’m being unfair, a cop who tries to interfere with a conversation an accused person is trying to have an attorney is…uh…a Bad Cop.

Comments

• June 1, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Mr. Horowitz: I appreciate the more even handed tone you take when you talk about not all cops being bad. And it seems that you have empathy for the stressful position they often find themselves. I like it when you said that you cannot even imagine the temptation to lie regarding an officer seeing a case fall apart. Although I believe that most officers do not lie and you may believe otherwise I appreciate the fact that you are extending empathy towards their position. All cops are not bad. I believe that only a very small minority are bad but unfortunately those are the ones we hear about the most. Honest cops are not deemed as "newsworthy".
• December 17, 2009, stephen sharp writes: You're absolutely wrong, all cops ARE bad. They are nothing but thieves and murderers. According to OSHA the law enforcement occupation is among the safest jobs of all. And many people continue to believe that 'cops put their lives are on the line'. What Bullshit!

It’s important for me and for all of us to not rush to judgment on this case.  There is no indication that any other detective in that unit was involved.

And he’s right.  His other officers were busy elsewhere.

Today, a Fresno Bee headline reads: “Video shows officer hitting man.”  The video shows two police officers holding down a homeless man and beating him in the face.

As Dyer notes,

On the surface, the video is disturbing — one that’s going to have a lot of people concerned. (Jim Guy, “Video shows officer hitting man” (February 11, 2009) Fresno Bee, p. B1, cols. 2-3 (emphasis added).)

However, the Bee story goes on to say,

The chief said that it is too early to say whether it was appropriate for the officer to punch Beaty in the head.  (Jim Guy, “Video shows officer hitting man” (February 11, 2009) Fresno Bee, p. B1, col. 3.)

KSee24 News say Dyer told them we need to wait for the detailed police reports, which will tell us what happened leading up to one officer punching Beaty repeatedly in the face while another officer holds him down.

Dyer has apparently seen the light.  He’s a reformed man.  It’s certainly a change from past cases — including some I have been or am involved in, so I’m not naming names — where Dyer has gone on television stating what he believed these individuals had done as if his beliefs were fact.

One can only hope that Fresno’s “new” police chief can hold on to his nascent faith and that, in fact, he may become something of an evangelist, preaching his new religion amongst the ranks of his own officers.

Because it actually would be nice, for a change, to see more cases tried in court — and less in the press.

Comments

• May 11, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Mr. Horowitz: I am sure that as an attorney you believe in the concept of a person being innocent until proven guilty. Police Chief Jerry Dyer was never even charged much less found guilty of statutory rape. And yet you feel the need to mention that incident in the first sentence of your article about the man.Would you appreciate it if an attorney prosecuting a man you were defending did the same thing? Probably not. But then again I will not make assumptions since I do not know you. In the headline you mock his religious faith. His faith may or may not be genuine. Who knows? But certainly "neither" one of us knows. And yet you proclaim it in a very mocking way. Neither one of us can see inside the mind of Mr. Dyer, at least I claim no psychic abilities and I speak only for myself. Please do not misunderstand me I am not a right wing "whatever the cops do is great" kind of guy. I do not wrap myself in the American flag every night as I watch Fox News. In fact I am very much to the left in the political spectrum.Even to the left of most green party members.But persecuting the man on the basis of his religious beliefs and headlining an incident for which he was never charged or found guilty is more than a little unfair. At least that is my opinion. And I think you would agree it is unfair if it was done to one of your clients. Again, just my opinion. I did enjoy reading your site and will continue to read it. Please accept my apology if I seem overly negative. All the best, eric essman.
• May 11, 2009, RickH writes: Eric, what do you drape yourself in while watching Fox News, then? Just kidding! I appreciate your input. I mean that sincerely and seriously. However, if by "innocent until proven guilty" you mean that you think that I think a person hasn't committed a crime unless a jury says he has, then you are, indeed, jumping to conclusions. I don't think that at all. If a person has committed a crime, they actually have committed the crime whether a jury or other fact-finder ever decides they did or not. I am less certain of whether most people accused of crimes have committed them until all the evidence has been presented. (Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent, or that a jury simply failed to convict for other reasons, or do you believe he got away with murder? My feeling is that "I don't know" and that drives a lot of people batty when they hear me say that.) Being less certain doesn't mean I don't have my suspicions. And here's the thing — as a judge (who for obvious reasons will remain nameless) said to me the other day during a discussion of this very issue concerning Dyer — "there are certain things in one's history which should disqualify you from certain career choices." As he went on to say, "This is one of them." That particular judge actually likes Dyer and has personally interacted with him. His feeling — and mine — was that based upon the accusations and how the thing played out, Dyer should never have become the police chief. My comments about Dyer have never noted anything other than that he has formerly been accused of a particular crime. And while I have some reason to think that these accusations are true, I wasn't there and do not know if they are. What I do know is that Jerry Dyer rides a high horse in a fashion that appears to me to be very hypocritical. And if I'm doing nothing else on this blog, I'm expressing my opinion. (I can't swear to this, but some day I think the dictionary definition of "blog (v.i.)" will include "to write, on the Internet, about one's opinion.") As for mocking his religious faith, I do no such thing. While it's true that I suspect anyone who reminds me of the Pharisees of at least giving the impression that their religious expressions are politically-based, I have no idea (as you noted) as to what's going on inside Dyer's head. I mock his behavior, not his faith. My opinion is that if Dyer were truly desirous of modeling the behavior of the purported savior, he would speak and behave differently than he does. I believe, too, that he would also likely be unable to hold the position that he does in contemporary society, because the way he is expected to act would clash with his principles. Finally, I'm not persecuting Jerry Dyer. Jerry Dyer suffers not one wit because of anything I say. I couldn't persecute Jerry Dyer if I desired to do so, which I actually don't. I do desire to get Jerry Dyer — consistent with the principles to which he claims allegiance — to say the same things about other criminal defendants that he says about criminal defendants who also happen to be police officers. When that happens, I will have fewer monkeys in my butt, I will be less cranky and you and I can perhaps share a drink and discuss this on a more philosophical level.
• May 12, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Mr. Horowitz: Thank you for replying to my post. I realize you are a busy man. But I disagree with you when you say that you are not mocking his religious faith.The first line on your blog is "Born again-Defense Evangelist, Jerry Dyer. Of course this is meant in a sarcastic and mocking way. Anyone can and does discern this when they see the headline. And you certainly have a legal right to mock anyone you desire, but at least own up to it. Also you are a very intelligent man and you know better than I that anyone can accuse snyone else of any crime in the world. Being accused of a crime means almost nothing in today's world. What if one of your female clients accused you one day of sexual molestation? Would you want a blog that was written about you to start with the headline "Accused sexual molester, Rick Horowitz". I think you would agree that would not be right or fair to you or your reputation. And I would stand in agreement with you about the unfairness of it. I think you are being in the same way unfair to Mr. Dyer. Also, comparing Chief Dyer to O.J. Simpson is as outrageous as it is ridiculous. O.J. Simpson was charged with a crime and faced a jury trial that had a preponderence of evidence pointing toward his guilt. Has Chief Dyer ever been formally charged with the crime of statutory rape? Has he ever been tried for the crime? The answer to both questions is as you know is"no". If you have something more weighty than an accusation about Chief Dyer please let it see the light of day. Bring it out in the courtroom and give the Chief a chance to defend himself. Or do you believe the right to defend oneself only extends to people who are not police officers? I saw much evidence presented against O.J. Simpson but I have seen no evidence presented against Chief Dyer. If the evidence is out there you have a duty to the public to let them view it and decide for themselves. What one judge may or may not think about Chief Dyer is really inconsequential. We all have people who do not like us for whatever reason. I am sure that you may have people who speak ill of you. That does not mean that their comments have objective truth value does it? I feel that I must come to the defense of Chief Dyer because he is in this case, the victim of what I consider to be cheap shots. His faith is being mocked and he is being labeled because of something he was accused of. If you feel you have a case against Chief Dyer then make it public and give him his day in court. He deserves that day as much as any other citizen. And for the record "yes" I do believe that O.J. was and is guilty. I will continue to support Chief Dyer until someone can show me some concrete reasons (something called evidence I believe) why I should not. I do like your column but I believe you are really off base with your criticism of Chief Dyer. It sounds more like a personal attack than a legal commentary. Just one man's opinion. All the best, Eric Essman.
• May 12, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Mr. Horowitz: Your comment about the judge confused me a little. You said (or in this case wrote) the judge "liked" Chief Dyer. And yet the judge thought he should not be the police chief and (I assume from the tone of the comments) that he was indeed guilty of statutory rape. So am I to assume that you spoke to a judge who likes rapists but just not as police chiefs? If you could please clear this up for me I would appreciate it. I do appreciate your time and effort that you take to put together your blog. But (I realize I am being redundant) I think you are being very unfair to Chief Dyer.
• May 13, 2009, When The Pot Calls The Kettle... | Fresno Criminal Defense writes: [...] his initial comment to this blog, Mr. Essman attempted to portray himself as being open-minded, or even-handed, or something along [...]
• November 18, 2009, lily writes: Thank you Mr. Horowitz for your blog. I think this Eric fellow would be correct if we were talking about an ordinary person, but since we are talking about a powerful public figure, he is being a little unreasonable and naive. Dyer never got his day in court not because there was a lack of evidence, but because he was protected from the accusations as an officer, and because of his purported faith. I have a copy of the newspaper that reported the accusations of statutory rape. Basically, his response to the accusations were that he and his wife were working out their problems and that he is a born again christian seeking forgiveness. That tells me two things: yes, he did commit statutory rape and that he uses his faith as a shield. There are many born-again christians in prison, homeless on the streets, and facing harassment form Dyer's pd, why don't they get the same forgiveness that Dyer gets? The judge you spoke with is absolutely right, his actions should have been a huge red flag to all of Fresno. An this so called reformed man uses his faith as a cover of piety while he trains his pd to harass every black, brown, and/or poor person in this town. If he were truly a pious, Jesus-following man, he would not be opposed to community based policing, he would not justify the murders of 40 men in 8 years at the hands of his department, and he would not publicly refer to the poor as scum. You have every reason to mock his faith, it is an insincere sham. Based on the news coverage of the accusations against Dyer I believe it is quite safe to say he committed that atrocity, but we all know he will never be held accountable. Please, continue to bring it up, we should never ever forget what sort of man is leading OUR police department. And please, I hope you will join us in the fight to FIRE DYER!!
• July 14, 2010, Harry Williby writes: Good Job Rick! We borrowed some of your language for our blog series. It's nice to know there are Attorneys who KNOW cops commit crime(s).

Related posts:

• Fresno Police Chief on Criminals: No Rush to Judgment
• When The Pot Calls The Kettle…
• Investing in Public Safety

The irony is not simply the weapons that are overlooked by searches that range anywhere from perfunctory privacy invasions whose real goal is to show who’s the boss, but that, compared to law enforcement officers, criminal defense attorneys are, on the whole, saints.

So I’m even more irritated when I go into court and the words of police officers are given such great weight that anything I, my client, or witnesses for the defense might say is automatically suspect.  But look at the evidence: police officers on the whole are, in fact, worse than defense attorneys.

On just about any given day, while the presiding judge is requiring brown-shirted deputies to ignore the law and search folks without any particularized belief that they have committed, are committing, or are about to commit any crimes and while those brown-shirts are “only following orders” (one of them actually said that to me), you can pick up the Fresno Bee and find between one and three stories about law enforcement officers breaking the law.

Police Chief Jerry Dyer himself — supposedly now a hardcore Christian — was previously investigated for having an affair with a 16-year-old girl.  As with most other police controversies, nothing ever came of this.  Since then, Dyer has remained an ardent advocate of withholding judgment on police officers who break the law.

And the Fresno Police Department’s most recently exposed criminal enterprise is not unusual.  Police departments in other areas of the country routinely shake down “criminals” to improve the bottom line.  Tenaha, Texas, for example, has a roaming cash checkpoint intended to help their cash-poor city to fund its two-person police department.

In other areas of the country, police routinely take property they want without warrants or right, in order to “investigate,” or cover up, crimes.  After the recent BART shooting in San Francisco, for example, police chased down witnessses and confiscated their cameras.  (The article about this has, for some reason, disappeared, but here’s the Google cached link.)  As the article points out, police have no right to take your property simply because you witnessed a crime.  But as one First Amendment lawyer noted:

You don’t want to get into a situation where you are refusing to comply with law enforcement, especially when that law enforcement officer just shot and killed somebody. No camera is worth losing your life over.

Not all officers committing property crimes have such laudable motives as funding new police stations or protecting the reputation of the police force.  Like other human beings, officers sometimes commit crimes because of addictions. As with other human beings, police officers sometimes commit crimes of opportunity. But do drug dealers deserve to be robbed? Does this justify the officers’ crimes?

Officers who commit property and other crimes don’t just target drug dealers.  Sometimes they hit hardworking construction site owners.  Sometimes it’s just a person who was stupid enough to trust them.  Sometimes they even steal from their own fellow officers!

I want to be clear about what I’m not saying here:  I’m not saying that all police officers are crooks, liars, criminals.  Cases like each of these I’ve linked above should serve to remind us that police officers are human beings.  Human beings not infrequently look out for their own interests.  Not all police officers are crooks, but police officers are ideally situated to abuse the power we, the People, have given them.  It’s no surprise, then, that they frequently do abuse this power.

Meanwhile, I’m hard-pressed to find any information about Fresno-area attorneys committing such crimes.  I know of one local attorney who has been arrested and charged with crimes, unrelated to his job.  I’ve no doubt there may be others that happened before my time.  (My memory of such arrests is of a District Attorney and perhaps some Deputy District Attorneys, but I’ve no doubt criminal defense attorneys in Fresno have also committed crimes before.  After all, the basic premise of my article has to do with humanity committing crimes.)

Isn’t it time we stopped considering officers as super-human and above reproach?  Shouldn’t we understand that they’re subject to the same foibles, fears and fibs as other human beings?  Shouldn’t we stop convicting people of crimes based almost entirely on the say-so of law enforcement officers whose jobs clearly bias them against the witnesses they defame in courtrooms and the people they aim to convict when they testify?

At the very least, shouldn’t we evaluate what they say in the context of all the evidence?  Isn’t that what we do for other human beings when they testify in court?

I’d like to hear what you have to say about this.  Feel free to use the form below to leave your comments to this post.

Comments

• March 28, 2009, Ashleigh writes: It sounds to me like you have a very large "chip on your shoulder" towards police officers, especially Jerry Deyer. Sure, there are corrupt officers, just as there are corrupt attorneys and corrupt workers in every single profession. BUT there are also very good police officers, for whom I am very grateful. And as a Valley resident, I consider Jerry Dyer to be a very good officer, and a very capable, courageous, and dedicated leader, with a very difficult job in which he must constantly face criticsm from people such as yourself. I am thankful for the bravery, courage, and dedication of police officers, even though I know there are police officers who abuse their power. There are teachers who molest their students, parents who abuse their children, company employees who commit fraud, and attorneys who accept bribes. And the list goes on. In every walk of life and every profession, there will be those who abuse and misuse their "power." And personally, I find dishonorable attorneys and/or attorneys with personal and/or political agendas that they place above Constitutional rights and laws to be just as frightening as police officers who abuse their power.
• March 28, 2009, RickH writes: "And personally, I find...attorneys with personal and/or political agendas that they place above Constitutional rights and laws to be just as frightening as police officers who abuse their power." Assuming that you mean attorneys whose personal and political aims result in them ignoring their clients rights and (therefore) providing ineffective assistance of counsel, I'd agree that they are frightening. I'm not sure if they're "as frightening as police officers who abuse their power," though. Bad attorneys only impact the clients who come to them and, to some extent, the system of justice; bad officers affect our entire society. The damage they do is more pervasive and more serious. Jerry Dyer faces criticism from me specifically because he is not a very good officer; he is not "capable, courageous, and dedicated [as a] leader." A leader would be an exemplar for the people he leads. Dyer is not that. And not just because of his past history — people can change and, if he had, he should be forgiven for his past — he is not an exemplar because he encourages his people towards a militaristic approach to their jobs. From what I can see, he does little to stop the abuse of power within his ranks and encourages favoritism and, if the stories are true, racism. There are, indeed, very good police officers. I, too, am grateful for them. But if you want to talk about something scarier than the bad police officers, which exist in too many (and increasing) numbers, it's people who, like the citizens of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, stand by, do nothing and make excuses for the fascistic portions of their government as they gain strength. That there are good officers doing their jobs with honor does not mean we should ignore the realities I discussed in this article.
• May 12, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Mr. Horowitz: Your accusations against Chief Dyer are very vague to say the least.You say he is not capable, courageous or dedicated and then you fail to give one specific example of such a case. You say he is guilty of favoritism and "if the stories are true" racism. Again, you fail to give specific examples of favoritism or racism. As an attorney you should know better. I especially take offense to the phrase "if the stories are true". You do not tell us what the "stories" are much less give us any supporting evidence for those stories. Are "stories" always true Mr. Horowitz? Have you ever defended anyone who has had someone tell a "story" about them that later proved to be false? I dislike you comparing law enforcement officers to Nazi's. Your comments about their "brown shirts" is clearly a comment indicating that they are similar to the Nazi's. Also your comments about the officers telling you that they "were just following orders" is once again an insinuation that they are at least somewhat Nazi like. If they were really as Nazi like as you seem to think you would not have the freedom to pursue the profession you do and would certainly not have the liberty to be writing your blog. With respect, Eric Essman.
• May 13, 2009, When The Pot Calls The Kettle... | Fresno Criminal Defense writes: [...] attack” to which Mr. Essman takes exception came in my comment made in a response to another Dyer defender. Mr. Essman notes that my comments are “vague to say the least.”  He particularly is [...]
• June 1, 2009, Sherri writes: The one thing you are absolutely right about in your assessment is this, police officer's are human. I invite you to read an article I just published based on my time as a police officer. The link is provided as my website address. Maybe you will get a different view of police officer's. By the way, FPD was my old department prior to my retirement. I am very proud to have been a member of FPD and I think you take the examples of a few bad apples and turn it into a generalization of police officer's as being crooks and liars. I thought the same thing about defense attorneys, and did not like to many that I came in contact with. However, I realize that despite a few bad apples, most attorneys are decent people trying to do what they think is best, just as cops do. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1800210/police_officers_are_human_.html?cat=47
• June 1, 2009, RickH writes: I can't help but shake my head over the fact that people feel the need to come here and defend police officers and point out how unfair I'm being and how I might "get a different view of police officer's [sic]" if I'll just do this, that, or the other thing. "That, that, or the other thing" usually means going to read some cheerleader's post about the police. Apparently many of you forget that I work around police officers quite a bit and get to see them in action more than many of their cheerleaders. It's ironic that many who feel the need to defend police officers seem to miss the point that I'm not attacking all police officers. In fact, nearly every time I say something about the police, it has to do with systemic issues stated as generalities and what is wrong with the system; I'm not attacking particular police officers at all. I happen to know some quite honorable police officers for whom I have a lot of respect. I don't always agree with how they do their jobs, or with their particular view on the world, but that doesn't change how I feel about them as human beings. Nevertheless, police officers aren't gods. They're human beings. Human beings make mistakes. Human beings give in to the temptation to make themselves look good even when they've made mistakes. Human beings with power to do so can, will and do sometimes lie, twist the truth, or otherwise stack the deck against the wrong people. If "the good guys" are so honorable, why is getting discovery and evidence one of the number one issues in courtrooms today? (DAs have a big part in this, but it starts with the police, many of whom don't always turn things over even to the DAs quickly enough.) Furthermore, do you folks who feel I'm so damned unfair to the police actually not read paragraphs like this, taken from the post above?

  I want to be clear about what I’m not saying here: I’m not saying that all police officers are crooks, liars, criminals. Cases like each of these I’ve linked above should serve to remind us that police officers are human beings. Human beings not infrequently look out for their own interests. Not all police officers are crooks, but police officers are ideally situated to abuse the power we, the People, have given them. It’s no surprise, then, that they frequently do abuse this power.

  Do you just skip over it when I say things like this because you think any criticism of "the police" is a bad thing and any negative statement made about the police, however true it is, shows that I'm prejudiced? The majority of police officers are decent people. However, even decent people are human beings. And all human beings are subject to abusing power when it is given to them. When you combine that with the cheerleaders who believe the police can never, ever, not even once do anything wrong, you've got a great potential societal danger. That's why the power of government — of which the police are the actual power! — was deliberately limited by our Founders. Finally, I'm a criminal defense attorney. I get to see a lot of police officers. I get to see them in situations where, as I've said, there is a great temptation for even the best of them to tell what they consider to be "little white lies" to make sure "the guilty people they arrested" get convicted. But isn't the purpose of a trial to determine if, in fact, the accused person is actually guilty? Isn't the purpose of a trial to get at the truth? Do the cheerleaders who visit here forget that this system was set up the way it is on purpose because our Founders well understood the tendency to jump to conclusions and the need for an adversarial-type trial? The hardcore among you who so love to tell me I'm biased, unfair, need an invitation to get a different view and so on: you only prove the wisdom of the Founders and my points. I suppose for that, I should thank you.
• July 17, 2009, K. McCartney writes: Mr. Horowitz, One year ago I was defending Fresno Police and Chief Dyer in particular. But, then my home was burglarized and I had to deal with the Fresno Police Department in ways that most people never do. 22 firearms were stolen from my home in three separate burglaries. And, there was a VERY serious attempted invasion by force while I was at home. If I had not been well prepared to confron armed criminals, the attempt would have been successful and I might not be able to write this. Fresno Police refused to respond to the home invasion attempt and refused to collect important evidence (fingerprints, shoe prints, etc). Over a four month period, NONE of the calls I placed to Fresno police detectives were returned until I started complaining VERY vocally to friends of mine that work with them. When I finally recieved the one return phone call (after weeks of calling), the detective told me that FPD would be happy to raid and search any home if I could give them a name or address of anyone I suspect. But, they still would not come to my hoase to collect evidence. When I realized (and confirmed) that the serial numbers of my stolen firearms had not been reported to BATF, and FPD would not return my phone calls about the serial numbers i had been able to obtain, I called the mayors office. After calling the Mayors office, another detective called to tell me that he was not going to let anyone tell him what to do and if I continued complaining to the mayor, he would find a reason to put me and/or my son in jail. When two (of the 4)Oakland police officers were killed by a rifle that might have been mine, i called Oakland PD. Oakland PD was WONDERFUL! They confirmed that Fresno PD had still not reported my firearms to BATF. They confirmed the serial numbers i gave them and those provided by the gun dealers I purchased them from. They forwarded this informato to FPD and got an Oakland area BATF agent involved. Oakland PD and BATF provided information to Fresno PD confirming the information that I had provided. They also confirmed that the selling dealers had tried to give the information (serial numbers) to FPD but that the FPD detective had refused to accept it. After all of that the Fresno PD detective wrote a letter to the Mayors office claiming that the firearms dealers claimed that I had never purchased any firearms from them! Several months after the burglaries, one burglary report was apparently "modified" to eliminate any mention of one of the stolen handguns. A month later that same firearm was recovered by one of the few honest FPD officers. that officer called me to ask, among other things, why i had not reported it stolen. He was very sympathetic and, without prodding conceded that a full 50% of FPD officers lack the integrity to serve in a job of public trust. He went even further by claiming that MANY FPD officers are continuously involved in criminal activities. He then asked me to understand that 50%, including himself, are honest and doing the best they can under the circumstances. FPD refuses to return my phone calls about the my recovered handgun. Thankfully, Oakland PD and BATF have documented that I did indeed report that firearm stolen. Thankfully, one of the firearms dealers saw the "red flags" and documented their attempt to provide evidense of my firearms purchases top the FPD officer who claimed I was lieing about ever purchasing those firearms. Fresno has no criminals as dangerous or dispicable as those who are wearing police uniforms. And our new Mayor doesn't seem to care. These "men" and "women" are the ultimate cowards and should be in prison. They falsly claim to put their lives at risk for us when their jobs are actually statistically safer that that of a typical salesman, truck driver, farm worker, etc. They are no better than school yard bullies with the principal on their side. They are too lazy to "work", too cowardly to do anything without overwhelming and innappropriate force.
• July 18, 2009, Esteban writes: What the hell, He molested a 16 yr old girl, shouldn't the mere doubt that he may have done it, or how he even got himself into that type of investigation open everybody's eyes to his persona??? come on people get it together, don't you find it odd how that time in his life never comes up again like it would with any other individual. hmmmm think about that.....
• July 18, 2009, RickH writes: Actually, he was accused of what would probably be considered statutory rape; not of molesting. And the "mere doubt" should not open anyone's eyes to anything. I want to point out again, as I have on numerous occasions, that it is not the fact of whether he did or did not do this that seems important to me most of the time. Although I believe the news reports indicate he hasn't really commented one way or another, I would expect that he would deny the truth of the accusation. What I think matters most is that (being as I would assume he believes himself to be innocent of what he has been accused of), he doesn't have more appreciation of the principle that people are innocent of crimes of which they've been accused unless proven otherwise in a court of law. I, for one, keep bringing this up because in news conference after news conference, he seems hell-bent on poisoning the minds of potential jurors, because he makes accusations and provides the police department's one side of the story. In my personal opinion, most of the time, other than the fact that someone has been arrested for a crime, few details should be broadcast prior to a trial. Accused persons are supposed to be tried in a court of law, following procedures and rules regarding evidence which have been developed over hundreds of years of experience as to what allows for a fair trial. Trying people in the press is a good way to up the number of innocent people being convicted. It serves no other real purpose. It is almost always purely police propaganda.
• December 12, 2011, Rudy Estrada writes: I am a law abiding citizen and a hard working father and have been harrased several times by FPD.Illegaly detained, threatened and am sick of them and there attitudes that they can do and treat people of a certain look or race however they want,just because im in a certain neighborhood, and dont look like an upper class person like the ones who are leaving comments on here defending the crooked cops probably look.They dont have any idea how enraging it is to be waiting for a bus after working 12 hours and be pulled aside and have pockets and id checked for no reason.Happened three times in one week while my truck was broke down.

Related posts:

• The Worship of Law Enforcement
• When The Pot Calls The Kettle…
• A Police Officer’s Word; A Juror’s Job

Today’s Fresno Bee reports that “[a]bout one-third of the Fresno Police Department’s drug squad is suspected of auto theft.”

Says Dyer,

It’s important for me and for all of us to not rush to judgment on this case.  There is no indication that any other detective in that unit was involved.

What exactly does the lack of of any indication that other officers were involved have to do with not rushing to judgment?  Regarding what, or whom, should we not be rushing?  It’s not at all clear.  Maybe Dyer is referring to these individual police officers.  Maybe he means we shouldn’t judge the entire force by the fact that one-third of one of his higher-profile departments has been under investigation by the California Highway Patrol since October (presumably 2008).

I agree that these officers are innocent until — or unless — they are proven guilty.  But this has to mark the first time I’ve seen Jerry Dyer upset about a case being tried in the media prior to getting into a court of law.

Perhaps the saddest part of this story appears in the comments posted by Bee readers.  The only two comments posted so far express anger that this story saw the light of day.  Particularly pathetic is the individual who attacks Jerry Dyer for “running his mouth of all this.”  I’m not really sure how trying to convince people that they should not rush to judgment counts as “running his mouth of all this,” but there it is.

What does this say about Fresno?  Who knows?  But it’s disconcerting to see this level of hypocrisy by Dyer and those commenting on the story.

Isn’t everyone innocent until (unless, Kennedy! I meant unless!) proven guilty?  Or is it only police officers?

Comments

• February 9, 2009, Treating Police Officers As Human Beings | Fresno Criminal Defense writes: [...] controversies, nothing ever came of this.  Since then, Dyer has remained an ardent advocate of withholding judgment on police officers who break the [...]
• February 12, 2009, Defense Evangelist, Police Chief Jerry Dyer | Fresno Criminal Defense writes: [...] two weeks ago, I noted that former-accused-statutory-rapist-turned-police-chief had seen the light: after some of the [...]

Related posts:

• Born-Again Defense Evangelist, Police Chief Jerry Dyer
• Treating Police Officers As Human Beings
• Letter from Rachel