"Don't look at the camera!Don't look at the camera!Just go by like you're high.Like you're high!"

.........dindu........

Thanks for this disclaimer.  We never could have guessed that without it.  

God Bless those heroes.

 
Pretty much this.


The dope house's attorney was smart enough not to release the video until well after the suspected eatables would have gone through the system and can't be tested for.  He knows it bullshit, but made the accusation knowing in can't be proved or disproved at this point.  

Then there shouldn't be any problem with each of the officers submitting to a full drug test, polygraph, and an investigation into there life style.

Cali doesnt allow polygraph in IA cases IIRC.

The other stuff, absolutely. The shocking thing is that you think its unlikely or the cops will be particularly concerned about it. Cops get used to having IA climb up their ass with a microscope everytime there is any sort of complaint.

So when can we expect the results of the IA investigation to be released?

Never. The cops have to be notified of the outcome and any discipline withen one year of IA learning of any misconduct. But they are prohibited by state law from releasing the results to anyone outside the department.

Really?

I'm not doubting you, I just think that they would want to give the public an update in these instances. I think it would do some good in restoring trust in the PD by either showing that the cops were disciplined, or that they were incorrectly represented by the edited video.

http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-478871-police-disciplinary.html



Hell the cops coworkers are not even allowed to learn the results or even the subject matter of IA investigations of their peers. They will have a peer get dragged out of the locker room by IA never to be seen again and they are left guessing why. Did he beat is wife, get a DUI, date someone he met on a call, have a bad use of force...everyone is left guessing.  About the only time you ever find out any details is if the cop turns around a sues the department.

Hair folical testing might rock their world WAY more than a poly.  There's a chance to get away with lying.  Science?  Not so much...    Be proffessional.  What a fucking concept.

ETA-  Leadership not demanding excellence is suspect baggage.  Or incompetent...

I think it was a certain protected class which brought that lawsuit up

Quite possible, but if this edited tape was produced by the arrestee's attorney, why would they edit that out? I would think they edited it to show the worst behavior possible?

What the hell!? Where's Bama? I'm not gonna stop following this thread till I get to hear his opinion on the matter. Don't tell me he changed his avatar.

I wonder if there will be a protest march?

I don't think anyone of value gives a shit.

The raid was May 27 and the video was released on June 10. They've got at least another week to test them.

dindu

Doesn't look much different from a robbery, down to the ski masks.

Im sure public pot purveyors have a history of shooting it out, necessitating all that manpower, bumble-fuck though it was.


And now for an utterly retarded urinal-licking reply, were I an utterly retarded urinal-licker:

Yea, I think everyone understood that without the disclaimer.


Here's my one and only issue.  There's a perception that what was being eaten was an edible.  Any CC in the military would have sent that entire group over to the Med Group for drug screening just to clear up any doubts.  Any boss at a company that administers drug tests would have sent that entire group of employees over to their contracted lab for drug screening, just to clear up any doubts.

Any leader who is concerned by the perception, and has full confidence in their employees' integrity, would have sent that entire group out for drug screening already.  With it being 18 days since the raid, if this hasn't occurred yet, it's very apparent that they are intentionally not being requested to submit to screening.  "Interviews will be conducted" is exactly the response and course of action I'd expect from a leader who is covering for his personnel.  

I am actually less intrigued by what they're eating at this point, than I am (if they haven't -- which we're not sure of yet) by why they haven't been screened to remove doubt.  IF (again, we don't know yet) they haven't or aren't being sent for screening, it'll be all the information I need to know about integrity and accountability within that department.  

Even as we're on a remote assignment right now, my Wife is still sent 2 hours away to go take random screenings at the nearest base on a regular basis.  She just got hit on Wednesday, as a matter of fact.  She had a whole schedule booked with 3 schools to visit and a DEP PT test to conduct, and they called her at 10am, told her to cancel everything for the rest of the day and drive 4 hours round trip to go piss.  

My buddy who is now the custodian of the controlled drugs drop box on base pisses nearly every 2 weeks because he's in a position of trust to secure, transport and destroy narcotics.  If a video like this can't be bothered to prompt a PD to remove all doubt (if even just to shut up the public) and send those involved in that scene for screening, there's an issue with accountability that does little to ease any perception given from that footage and removes trust that the right thing is being done by members of that dept.


Anyone on this forum with a tank should understand the above and expect the same accountability efforts to be made, especially when there's a possibility that use had occurred.

Son, why do you hate America, Bacon, and God?



Why don't you want to feel safe?



Tin or aluminum?



Kiwi or Johnson?



 

Update?

Interesting...



"The May 27 raid depicted in the video--which led to a dozen arrests and
shut down the Sky High Collective on 17th St.--is just one of numerous
busts of dispensaries that failed to qualify in the ballot and which the
city says are operating in violation of Santa Ana's current ban on
marijuana dispensaries. James and her husband David told the Weekly
that they were present at Sky High because their attorney, Matt Pappas,
had learned the collective would be raided from Santa Ana's city
attorney, Sonia Carvalho.""



""When they came back into the back room when David and I were, they
asked us why we were there, and I told them we were there to observe
them, the police," James recalled. "And they were really surprised about
that." When James told the officers that "Sonia" had told her attorney
about the raid, the officers didn't recognize the name. "They had no
idea and it made them seem kind of stupid and maybe that's why they got
mad.""

 

I'm generally in agreement with you but serious question; how are the actual cameras evidence?  I can see siezing the DVR as evidence but why the cameras themselves?  

Looks bad for sure.

The cameras aren't evidence. It was a punitive measure.



 

Answer to the camera question.

At some point at trial a Defense Attorney successfully convinced a jury that if evidence isn't in the court room it doesn't exist. As a result everything is taken. And if it can't be taken to the court room then the jury goes to where the evidence is stored.  Discovery laws also require that absolutely everything gets turned over to the defense and that they have access to all of the evidence. Taking the DVR and leaving the cameras would give the defense at least half a day of arguments that the cameras somehow contained evidence clearing their client, that it shows that you did not do a thorough search and left evidence, etc.

So its either leave it all or take it all. If you have PC to believe that there is evidence in the video system you take it all.

To the piss testers. They should have to submit to regular "random" piss tests on a regular basis anyway. And yes, the first thing they should have done when the video was released was piss test all of them.  

Anyone pissing hot should be immediately terminated and are where I work.  Like I said before, if they were stealing evidence from the scene then they need to be fired. If the video evidence showed them stealing then it would not have been edited out.

The only way the public will hear of this again is if the officers are fired. Unfortunately it is confidential personnel information if complaints against officers are unsustained or the officer is exonerated. So the only info ever released is negative.

Most of you are just upset because you think weed should be legal and it's not. Sorry about that, but this raid is hardly what you are trying to make it out to be.   It's just an attorney trying to get a check from a partial narrative. No different from Ferguson, New York, or Baltimore. Just switch the subject of complaint from use of force to legalize drugs.

I will be happy to answer any other real questions.
Have a nice day,
Rob

drop cams for the win. go ahead bitchs find the dvr....

In this case, as in many others, I think body cameras would be of tremendous utility.  No reason to rely on edited, grainy video when there'd be a half dozen different angles capturing audio and video of the entire operation.  Come to think of it, the same could be said for any 'no-knock' or any warrant service.  Could be a good tool for training and QA too and to enable better judicial oversight over how the warrant was executed.

How many dash cameras does your agency go through putting the entire system into evidence whenever evidence from them is logged?

Also can you point to any cases where video evidence has actually been excluded because there wasn't a pile of smashed cameras sitting on the table?

Yup.  You can argue the value of hours of nothing video for the occasional nugget while a planned raid has absolutely none of the same concerns.

Interesting. Thanks.

It's not only about the footage.

Someone that hasnt spent much time in court rooms probably doesnt understand how the game is played. No cameras in evidence will result in the defense arguing the cameras didnt exist or the cops were lazy or even negligent in not collecting the cameras. And if they took those "short cuts" (not collecting the cameras), well what other shortcuts did they take ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

Go sit in on a few drug sales prelims. You'll learn that its better to collect too much physical evidence than to leave something behind that the defense will try to latch onto as proof of an incomplete investigation.

With many words you answered neither question.

You are fixated on the footage. Its not about the footage. Are you just interested in arguing or actually learning something about narcotics investigations and narcotics sales trials?

Collecting the DVR from a camera system isn't about footage?  Then what is the purpose?

I was addressing why collecting the actual cameras is a good idea for prosecuting narcotics sales cases.

Looks like a front doors were breached by fucking The Village People

Other than "defense attorneys will grasp at straws" you haven't really given a reason, let a lone explained how that grasping at straws is even effective.  

If the goal was to prove that there were cameras there then the DVR video along with photographs of the cameras would get to the same end without causing unnecessary damage.
If the goal was to prove that there was a functional camera somewhere in the building then hitting one with a halligan tool is actually less effective than getting a ladder and a screwdriver out.

I'm on my phone and trying to avoid quote trees....

Dashcam footage is stored for 180 days. If there is an arrest or any evidence then the officer is required to turn in one DVD to evidence and one DVD to the District Attorney's office as part of the case file.  All data is digital and stored out of the cars. The officers have no direct access to the data and submit a request based on date/time. The data is stored for 180 days so supervisors and/or IA can review the evidence for complaints, etc.

I work in North Carolina, so I haven't run across needing to seize a dope shops internal surveillance system as evidence  of a crime.  If I did we would take the whole system. Prying the camera from the ceiling isn't smashing it. Did we watch the same video?

I have been involved in multiple investigations where the DA has dismissed all charges because items were photographed, left on scene, and not taken. This includes one indoor grow where another supervisor (I was an investigator at the time) told the officers to leave some of the electrical equipment behind.   No indoor grow case with no evidence.

So the short answer is excluded by Judge? No. Refusal to prosecute by DA?  Yes.

No arguments there. Cracked me up hat they had a ram when the doors opened out.

We're fixated on the footage, because the footage we have seems to show some egregious misbehavior by cops.  

But you know that.

Fixed it for you.

Iraq ain't the arena, son.

That degree of technical knowledge may be a bit more than can be reasonably expected.



 

And buzzed.

They would show up in a hair test.