See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319367364627211.html
Published: Jan 29, 2009
Author: .
Post Date: 2009-01-29 16:12:53 by PSUSA
Ping List: *Jack-Booted Thugs* Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Keywords: None
Views: 159
Comments: 7
By AMIR EFRATI It's one of the most common accusations by defendants and defense attorneys -- that police officers don't tell the truth on the witness stand. Of course, defendants themselves can be the ones lying, but the problem of police perjury -- and what can be done about it -- is being debated anew. Fueling the discussion are recent court cases in New York City and Boston that indicated officers may have lied and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month that could have broader implications for cases in which improperly obtained evidence is in dispute. Questionable testimony by police comes up most often in firearm- or drug-possession cases in which officers often testify that a defendant had a bulge in his pocket -- which they thought might be a gun -- or dropped drugs in plain sight as they approached him, giving the officers the right to seize the contraband. Defense lawyers say in many of these cases, officers are "testilying" and that the guns or drugs were actually discovered when their clients were unjustly frisked by officers. They also say testilying frequently occurs in more serious cases. In Boston, a federal judge last week ruled that a police officer there falsely testified at a pretrial hearing in a gun-possession case about the circumstances of the defendant's arrest. The judge, Mark Wolf, is considering sanctions against the prosecutor for not immediately disclosing that the officer's testimony contradicted what he told prosecutors beforehand. A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., last fall ruled that a U.S. marshal and a New York City police officer lied when they testified that a defendant dropped two bags of drugs in front of them and then invited the officers to his apartment, where he revealed a large cache of cocaine. Though few officers will confess to lying -- after all, it's a crime -- work by researchers and a 1990s commission appointed to examine police corruption shows there's a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street. To stem the problem, some criminal-justice researchers and academic experts have called for doing polygraphs on officers who take the stand or requiring officers to tape their searches. A Supreme Court ruling this month, however, suggests that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule. The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out. Criminal-justice researchers say it's difficult to quantify how often perjury is being committed. According to a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized. "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," though it's difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That's because the exclusionary rule "sets up a great incentive for...police to lie." Police officers don't necessarily agree, says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who teaches law and police studies in New York. "Perjury is endemic in the court system, but officers lie less than defendants do because generally they aren't heavily invested in the outcome of the cases," he says. Testilying may have taken off after a 1961 Supreme Court decision boosted the exclusionary rule by requiring state courts to exclude -- or throw out -- some evidence seized in illegal searches, such as when police frisk people without probable cause or search a residence without a warrant. Immediately after the decision, Mapp v. Ohio, studies showed that the number of annual drug arrests in the U.S. -- most cases are prosecuted in state court -- didn't change much but there was a sharp increase in officers claiming that suspects dropped drugs on the ground. "Either drug users were suddenly dropping bags all over the place or the cops were still frisking but saying the guy dropped the drugs," says John Kleinig, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This month's Supreme Court decision added an exception to the exclusionary rule by holding that the prosecution of an Alabama man for drug- and firearm-possession charges was valid, even though the contraband was found after the man was wrongly arrested and searched. Police officers had mistakenly thought he was subject to an arrest warrant. Throwing out evidence because of wrongful searches and arrests "is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. Civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers say losing the exclusionary rule would harm the public. "We'd risk far greater invasions of privacy because officers would have carte blanche to do outrageous activity and act on hunches all the time," says JaneAnne Murray, a criminal defense lawyer in New York.
Poster Comment: Nonsense, cops don't lie.
Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PSUSA (#0)
Cops lie through their teeth all the time. They have zero credibility with me.
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: PSUSA (#0)
POLICE ADMIT PLANTING GUNS AND DRUGS IN CARS, LAUGH ABOUT IT ... cops in court in Orange County CA admit in court that they plant guns and drugs in people cars and laugh about it. The story was broke by an indy paper and was forced to be subsequently covered by the LA Times and Orange County register. Amazing series of articles. R. Scott Moxley who broke the story in November 2006 is to be highly commended.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#3. To: Elliott Jackalope, PSUSA, all (#1)
Possession of weapons and drugs - no harm to anyone, just the possession - how many people are incarcerated because of this?
#4. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
Bingo!
Cops lie through their teeth all the time.
#5. To: PSUSA, JETHRO TULL (#0) (Edited)
Taping searches is silly. They'll just throw down the baggie off camera. Testilying occurs in the majority of ALL cases IMO, i.e. 99% not 51%. They WILL violate the Constitution, they do so regularly and they will find a way to take you to the grey bar motel if at all possible regardless of guilt or innocence. They do not give a shit about you. The quote that cops are not "heavily invested" in the outcomeS is total Bravo Sierra. These clowns are emotional misfits who not only want to protect their jobs and their illusion of integrity, but they also maliciously desire to see YOU go to jail if they've had contact with you because THEY are the police and YOU are not and THEY are always right. IT's all about power, not justice. F EM.
"Perjury is endemic in the court system, but officers lie less than defendants do because generally they aren't heavily invested in the outcome of the cases," he says.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
ALAS, BABYLON
#6. To: PSUSA (#0)
No it doesn't. They're all making too much money NOT to look the other way.
Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie
#7. To: PSUSA (#0)
Turtle has the cure: the more laws, the more criminals. The less laws, the less criminals.
I can kill you with my Brain.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest