Miranda Panel Tomorrow
April 7, 2011
As mentioned earlier, I am a Miranda panelist at the Loyola Law School’s Fidler Institute tomorrow afternoon. The details can be found here. The panel is a group of solid folks, including lead counsel in the recent Thompkins decision, which will change Miranda and police interrogations for certain. Hope to see some of you there!
Testilying Case??
January 18, 2011
In perusing the dozens of police cases that come out each month, I am sometimes struck by a scarce few that seem to have real import for the future of police practices.
Take a look at this link, and let me know what you think. The limitations of the appellate court’s power (and their interpretation of “how much” the police may have lied) seem to be the only factors that kept this from coming back to haunt the arresting officers and their case.
As I have said time and again, it is important when dealing with a police client to remember that there are legal, moral, and yes — cultural — issues in play. In light of this decision, it will be intriguing to see what happens in the next few big cases that bring so-called testilying into focus.
LAPD May Day – No Officers Fired
July 1, 2009
This recent article in the LA Times reports that none of the officers involved in the May Day events of 2007 will be terminated. What many in the legal community do not know is that the decision to retain those employees was not made by the Chief of Police.
In a system unique to Los Angeles, the Chief is not the ultimate authority on whether an officer remains employed after alleged misconduct. Instead, an internal board comprised of two high-ranking managers and one community member preside over a quasi-trial called a board of rights. This board alone determines whether Officer Jones committed any misconduct, and what the penalty should be. The Chief’s only option is to reduce the prescribed penalty.
Arguments abound about whether this administrative body is the correct forum for such a critical decision. The Board of Rights does not observe traditional evidentiary rules (for instance heresay is allowed), and they do not have any formal training in employment or labor law. Police unions, police managers, police officers, public interest groups, the ACLU — each have weighed in on the process pro or con.
What is for certain is that the Board of Rights is one of many internal police phenomena about which members of the bar are often unaware or under-educated. A relatively small “defense bar” has emerged to represent officers at the board, and the niche has produced local experts. If you have questions or ideas about this process, please weigh in with a comment…
El Monte Police Use Of Force
May 18, 2009
The recent El Monte Police use of force has many in the Southern California legal community scratching their heads. As usual, the pundits have jumped into the “hear me the loudest” fray. I always try to steer clear of that circus, and did so again with this incident.
I would like to note, however, that in evaluating any use of police force, it is the law and the rules that matter. By the “rules” I mean, of course, the police department’s written procedures for using force. Different agencies are free to have policies and procedures regarding when and how their officers may use force. Most attorneys are surprised to learn how varied these policies can be.
In the criminal arena, I am confident the District Attorney’s office has been reviewing the video and will look hard at any possible prosecution(s). On the civil side, there will be no shortage of plaintiff’s counsel interested in whether or not these officers’ actions violated the standard. Both of these inquests will be thorough in the extreme.
In the legal community, we should stay above the three rings, and remind ourselves and our colleagues that the officers’ actions as measured against the twin metrics of the law and internal policy, not the hype or anger in the community, that will determine the end result of any legal matters.