Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/27/2009 8:54:09 AM EDT
Report: Embattled Oakland Police Chief Tucker Resigns



Monday, January 26, 2009 – updated: 9:33 am PST January 27, 2009

OAKLAND, Calif. –– Embattled Oakland police chief Wayne Tucker, whose force has been rocked by a drug search warrant scandal and an FBI investigation, has resigned from his post.

At a morning news conference, Tucker announced he would resign effective Feb. 28. Tucker said the decision was his own and that he was not asked by Mayor Ron Dellums to step down.

"It is with regret that I accept Chief Tucker's resignation," Dellums told the media.

Tucker cited conflicts with the Oakland City Council as the primary reason for his resignation. The announcement came less than 24 hours after the embattled chief refused to comment on the status of his job at Dellums "State Of The City" address Monday night.

Dellums said during his address that the perception on Oakland streets is that some officers are not being held accountable for their actions.

"That perception is reality and it has to change," said Dellums.


Chief Wayne Tucker

But that change, for right now anyway, apparently does not include the chief. A department spokesman flatly denied that the chief's resignation had happened.

"The mayor has not asked for the chief's resignation and the chief has not given his resignation. And that is it," said Oakland Police information Officer Jeff Thomason at the address.

However, acting City Adminstrator Dan Lindheim said the chief has previously indicated he would be willing to step down if it's in the best interest of the department.

"I think it's a continuous debate in his mind," explained Lindheim. "Is he more effective by being the chief or is he more effective by getting out of the way?"

Criticism of the department has been simmering, but reached a boil in recent days after KTVU and the Chauncey Bailey Project revealed that the FBI is investigating the Oakland Police Department.

Among the allegations is that Captain Ed Poulson, current head of police internal affairs, is suspected of kicking a man nine years ago so severely that the man later died. He allegedly then got other officers to cover up his actions.

And while that did not occur on Chief Tucker's watch, some city council members have indicated they no longer have confidence in Chief Tucker and they want him to resign.

City Council President Jane Brunner, who was knocked to the ground by a television cameraman who was chasing Tucker, said there was "a very significant rumor" that Tucker will resign but she said she's been assured by city officials that Tucker hasn't offered to resign and Dellums hasn't asked him to resign.

"If I could read the tea leaves, he [Tucker] won't resign," Brunner said.

However, she said she and fellow City Council members Larry Reid, Desley Brooks and Pat Kernighan will hold a news conference at City Hall on Tuesday to talk about their concerns about Tucker and the Police Department.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18571210/detail.html
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:07:14 AM EDT
[#1]
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:08:59 AM EDT
[#2]
I was a member of OPD years ago when it was the best police agency in the country. It has been subjected to ineffective leadership for years. This is an opportunity for rebuilding, but I'm a cynic and doubt the politicians can do the job.

As one of our former deputy chiefs said: "The varsity has left the field".
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:09:57 AM EDT
[#3]
oakland is a total shit hole.  the leftists have fucked that place so badly this is the result.  delums is a total leftist.  Fuck them all.  nuking from orbit should be an option.
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:10:10 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


This cop doesn't.  Sorry, you should be less apt to judge so quickly.  There is a difference between arresting a Jaywalker who attempts to punch you and kicking a man in the head and killing him.

Thats like saying all guns owners are criminals.
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:10:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,




Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:12:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


This cop doesn't.  Sorry, you should be less apt to judge so quickly.  There is a difference between arresting a Jaywalker who attempts to punch you and kicking a man in the head and killing him.

Thats like saying all guns owners are criminals.



i said many . not all . .


somehow.     and I hope to god im wrong. .

i think that if that man had not died,,    the same posters in the other thread would be posting..  yeah ..  you showed him..   you gotta build your street cred.


i hope im wrong.  



its all fun and games untill someone dies or your caught on tape.  


stay safe all the arfcom LEOs.





edit..  

it seems there is a fine line between building the needed street cred ..  and the " well.. that just wont do,.,.  "

that line is  blurred mighty quick for some.  

 

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:13:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,



http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r98/tyronesmith555/handjob.gif


understood.

thanks

you can jack me off later .. im all good for now.  
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:15:18 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:16:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Judge orders two Oakland police officers to prove existence of informants

Updated: 12/05/2008 07:17:54 AM PST

OAKLAND — Two Oakland police officers embroiled in the department's search warrant imbroglio will have to meet with an Alameda County Superior Court judge next week to prove the existence of confidential informants the officers said were used to purchase suspected drugs on the street, the judge ruled Thursday.

Acting on a request from the county public defender's office, Judge Sandra Bean requested that Officers Francisco Martinez and Alan Leal meet with her for a closed-door session to answer questions from defense attorneys and provide information proving the existence of informants.

Bean's request is the latest development in the department's search warrant dilemma, which was revealed in late September when the department admitted almost two dozen officers made faulty statements to judges as they sought search warrants on the homes of suspected small-time drug dealers in East Oakland. [Pattern of corruption and official misconduct]

The department has acknowledged that officers told judges that substances bought on the street by confidential informants or through undercover operations had been tested, even though the department's crime lab had not proved the substances to be drugs.

The admission immediately put dozens of criminal cases in question and, so far, has resulted in the dismissal of criminal charges against 10 defendants. In addition, it sparked an internal affairs investigation and led the department to place at least eight police officers on paid administrative leave.

Given the admission that at least one fact in the officers' sworn affidavits was false, the public defender's office questioned Thursday the validity of other statements in the affidavits.

Specifically, attorneys questioned whether officers even had confidential informants or actually purchased substances on the street before seeking the warrants.

"Everything in these search warrants is called into question now," said Jeff Chorney, a legal assistant with the public defender's office who argued the motion Thursday. "This is an officer who has already lied once to someone you share the bench with."

Although Bean agreed more information needs to be gathered, she declined to force the department to produce its confidential informants, saying she will try to prove their existence through interviews with the two officers.

"At this step, I will do this in a stepwise fashion," she said. "If I feel I need to hear from the confidential informant and other officers (after the meeting), I will call them."

Thursday's hearing marked a new phase in the search warrant controversy as the district attorney's office has begun refusing to simply drop criminal cases built around the questionable warrants.

While most of the first wave of questionable warrants was written by one officer, Karla Rush, other cases involve warrants written by a host of officers, some of whom have only one warrant in question.

As a result, the warrants could be salvaged based upon an officer's history and other statements made in the sworn affidavits.

"Each one of these cases are different and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis," said Kevin Wong, a deputy district attorney handling the questionable warrants. "Some of these officers may not have as many warrants in question; some of them have only one."

In fact, Superior Court Judge Allan Hymer refused this week to throw a case from court, ruling that a search warrant based on a faulty affidavit still was legal. Hymer ruled the officer involved was negligent but did not perjure himself or purposely lie about the status of a drug test.

The case involved the arrest of Noble Johnson, who was caught with cocaine base in his home during a police raid in March. The police officer involved in the case wrote in a sworn affidavit March 16 that drugs purchased by an informant had been tested. Evidence in the case, however, showed the drugs had not been tested until three days later.

Hymer ruled that based on the officer's experience and the proximity of the test to the sworn affidavit, the officer simply had made an error and was not purposely trying to deceive the court.

"The only conclusion I could draw was that the officer had not been truthful, "... but the judge found negligence," said Edward Bell, a defense attorney who represented Johnson. "Obviously, we are disappointed."

Wong argued in court Thursday that other search warrants might meet a similar fate and cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

"The statement that (officers) lied, I think that is something that still needs to be determined," he said. "To state, at this point, they are lies is premature."

Nevertheless, Andrew Steckler, an assistant public defender also working on the issue, said officers must be interviewed by judges to determine what is factual and what is erroneous in the sworn affidavits.

"We're pleased with the judge's ruling today," he said.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11142397
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:17:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


no no.

you missed him trolling the doctor308s thread.

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:18:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


This cop doesn't.  Sorry, you should be less apt to judge so quickly.  There is a difference between arresting a Jaywalker who attempts to punch you and kicking a man in the head and killing him.

Thats like saying all guns owners are criminals.



remember..  he only went after him..  when he flipped him off.    


he himself said .. had he not flipped him off..   it would of not phased him ..


he didnt go after him for the jay walking..    the flipping of the finger was the catalyst.. he said so himself.


Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:19:45 AM EDT
[#12]

Oakland to fire 11 cops in search warrant case

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, January 16, 2009


OAKLAND –– Oakland intends to fire 11 police officers for allegedly lying to obtain search warrants in drug cases, officials said Thursday.

The two sergeants and nine officers face dismissal in a scandal that has thrown into jeopardy the prosecutions of dozens of suspects. At least 12 have already had their cases dismissed because warrants that police used to obtain evidence were obtained on the basis of lies by officers, according to attorneys involved in the cases.

The officers told judges that substances seized from drug suspects had been identified by the Oakland police crime lab as narcotics when, in fact, they had not, authorities said. Those false statements were used to persuade judges to issue warrants that police relied on to gather more evidence.

Some officers also lied to internal affairs investigators looking into the allegations, City Attorney John Russo said.

The officers "knew or should have known that information in their affidavits regarding the testing of drugs was false," Russo said.

"These terminations are difficult for the city, but they show that honesty and integrity are non-negotiable for officers in the Oakland Police Department," Russo said. "The terminations demonstrate that the Oakland Police Department's internal review systems and reform measures are operating soundly and in the interests of justice."

Police spokesman Officer Jeff Thomason would not comment on the matter Thursday, saying state law barred police from discussing personnel matters.

However, Assistant Police Chief Howard Jordan has said that what the officers did amounted to procedural errors. Police Chief Wayne Tucker stressed earlier that internal affairs investigators uncovered the problem and that officers were being retrained. [Chief of Oakland internal affairs under investigation for kicking man to death and having other officers cover it up. I wonder what the outcome of IA investigation will be, hmmm...]

"We discovered it; we're fixing it," Tucker said in October.

The city is facing two federal civil rights lawsuits over the warrants issue. One complaint was filed on behalf of two men whose East Oakland homes were searched last year.

Jason Hodge, a spokesman for the men's attorney, said Thursday that Russo's announcement "strengthens and validates our case. The city does not have a leg to stand on. They had a number of rogue officers who are basically trampling on the rights of Oakland residents, and now they're going to have to pay."

The other civil complaint is a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs, including Reginald Oliver, 39. Prosecutors were forced to drop a charge of illegally possessing ammunition against Oliver after discovering that the search warrant for his home had been obtained by an officer who made intentionally false and/or misleading statements on an affidavit to a judge, the suit said.

Both suits name Officer Karla Rush, an eight-year officer who sources said is among those the city wants to fire. The names of the other officers were not made public.

Mary Sansen, an attorney for the officers, blasted the city Thursday, saying the blame rests with police commanders who she said failed to train officers on how to write search-warrant affidavits properly.

"The fact that I have anybody who's being terminated over this case is just simply outrageous," Sansen said. "Some of my officers have routinely been denied any form of training. I have clients who are writing search warrants who have never been to search-writing school, who have been expected to pick up as they go."

The search-warrant issue was discussed Thursday at a court hearing in San Francisco before U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson. The judge is overseeing department reforms in the wake of the Riders scandal, which involved a group of officers accused of planting evidence and beating suspects in West Oakland.

Two criminal trials of three former officers ended in mistrials. The case led to a $10.5 million civil settlement with citizens who said they were abused by the officers, along with a court order mandating the reforms that Henderson is overseeing.

An independent monitoring team created as part of the effort said in a report last week on the warrants issue that, "Although the detection and investigation of this alleged misconduct reflects well on the department, the underlying misconduct, if true, is clear indication that the organizational and community values that have been integrated into some parts of the department have not yet taken root throughout OPD."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/16/BAVV15BGOJ.DTL
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:19:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


That was a BART PD officer, not Oakland PD - different departments

Brian

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:20:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


no no.

you missed him trolling the doctor308s thread.




i posted a handfull of times  if that much..  not once was i disrespectful to him..

how is that trolling?


Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:21:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


Get your facts straight. That police shooting at the BART station was by a BART police officer, not OPD. These are two different agencies, with different jurisdictions, funded by different government agencies.

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:21:50 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Judge orders two Oakland police officers to prove existence of informants

Updated: 12/05/2008 07:17:54 AM PST

OAKLAND — Two Oakland police officers embroiled in the department's search warrant imbroglio will have to meet with an Alameda County Superior Court judge next week to prove the existence of confidential informants the officers said were used to purchase suspected drugs on the street, the judge ruled Thursday.

Acting on a request from the county public defender's office, Judge Sandra Bean requested that Officers Francisco Martinez and Alan Leal meet with her for a closed-door session to answer questions from defense attorneys and provide information proving the existence of informants.

Bean's request is the latest development in the department's search warrant dilemma, which was revealed in late September when the department admitted almost two dozen officers made faulty statements to judges as they sought search warrants on the homes of suspected small-time drug dealers in East Oakland. [Pattern of corruption and official misconduct]

The department has acknowledged that officers told judges that substances bought on the street by confidential informants or through undercover operations had been tested, even though the department's crime lab had not proved the substances to be drugs.

The admission immediately put dozens of criminal cases in question and, so far, has resulted in the dismissal of criminal charges against 10 defendants. In addition, it sparked an internal affairs investigation and led the department to place at least eight police officers on paid administrative leave.

Given the admission that at least one fact in the officers' sworn affidavits was false, the public defender's office questioned Thursday the validity of other statements in the affidavits.

Specifically, attorneys questioned whether officers even had confidential informants or actually purchased substances on the street before seeking the warrants.

"Everything in these search warrants is called into question now," said Jeff Chorney, a legal assistant with the public defender's office who argued the motion Thursday. "This is an officer who has already lied once to someone you share the bench with."

Although Bean agreed more information needs to be gathered, she declined to force the department to produce its confidential informants, saying she will try to prove their existence through interviews with the two officers.

"At this step, I will do this in a stepwise fashion," she said. "If I feel I need to hear from the confidential informant and other officers (after the meeting), I will call them."

Thursday's hearing marked a new phase in the search warrant controversy as the district attorney's office has begun refusing to simply drop criminal cases built around the questionable warrants.

While most of the first wave of questionable warrants was written by one officer, Karla Rush, other cases involve warrants written by a host of officers, some of whom have only one warrant in question.

As a result, the warrants could be salvaged based upon an officer's history and other statements made in the sworn affidavits.

"Each one of these cases are different and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis," said Kevin Wong, a deputy district attorney handling the questionable warrants. "Some of these officers may not have as many warrants in question; some of them have only one."

In fact, Superior Court Judge Allan Hymer refused this week to throw a case from court, ruling that a search warrant based on a faulty affidavit still was legal. Hymer ruled the officer involved was negligent but did not perjure himself or purposely lie about the status of a drug test.

The case involved the arrest of Noble Johnson, who was caught with cocaine base in his home during a police raid in March. The police officer involved in the case wrote in a sworn affidavit March 16 that drugs purchased by an informant had been tested. Evidence in the case, however, showed the drugs had not been tested until three days later.

Hymer ruled that based on the officer's experience and the proximity of the test to the sworn affidavit, the officer simply had made an error and was not purposely trying to deceive the court.

"The only conclusion I could draw was that the officer had not been truthful, "... but the judge found negligence," said Edward Bell, a defense attorney who represented Johnson. "Obviously, we are disappointed."

Wong argued in court Thursday that other search warrants might meet a similar fate and cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

"The statement that (officers) lied, I think that is something that still needs to be determined," he said. "To state, at this point, they are lies is premature."

Nevertheless, Andrew Steckler, an assistant public defender also working on the issue, said officers must be interviewed by judges to determine what is factual and what is erroneous in the sworn affidavits.

"We're pleased with the judge's ruling today," he said.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11142397


So Oscar Grant's family should get $25M from BART (PD) for "patterns of official misconduct" occuring at Oakland PD?

Brian

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:22:15 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


That was a BART PD officer, not Oakland PD - different departments

Brian




Same town and culture of corruption. Oakland PD was the one investigating the BART murder.

No, the BART cases is separate. There are already lawsuits against Oakland PD for these crimes.

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums said today that allegations that the head of the Oakland Police Department's internal affairs division beat a drug suspect who later died and then tried to cover it up are "serious."

In a statement, Dellums said, "I support the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and we are cooperating fully. I hope the investigation is conducted in a thorough and fair, but expedited manner."

The mayor said, "I appreciate that Chief Wayne Tucker and the Police Department have pledged their full support in the investigation."
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:23:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Oakland to fire 11 cops in search warrant case

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, January 16, 2009


OAKLAND –– Oakland intends to fire 11 police officers for allegedly lying to obtain search warrants in drug cases, officials said Thursday.

The two sergeants and nine officers face dismissal in a scandal that has thrown into jeopardy the prosecutions of dozens of suspects. At least 12 have already had their cases dismissed because warrants that police used to obtain evidence were obtained on the basis of lies by officers, according to attorneys involved in the cases.

The officers told judges that substances seized from drug suspects had been identified by the Oakland police crime lab as narcotics when, in fact, they had not, authorities said. Those false statements were used to persuade judges to issue warrants that police relied on to gather more evidence.

Some officers also lied to internal affairs investigators looking into the allegations, City Attorney John Russo said.

The officers "knew or should have known that information in their affidavits regarding the testing of drugs was false," Russo said.

"These terminations are difficult for the city, but they show that honesty and integrity are non-negotiable for officers in the Oakland Police Department," Russo said. "The terminations demonstrate that the Oakland Police Department's internal review systems and reform measures are operating soundly and in the interests of justice."

Police spokesman Officer Jeff Thomason would not comment on the matter Thursday, saying state law barred police from discussing personnel matters.

However, Assistant Police Chief Howard Jordan has said that what the officers did amounted to procedural errors. Police Chief Wayne Tucker stressed earlier that internal affairs investigators uncovered the problem and that officers were being retrained. [Chief of Oakland internal affairs under investigation for kicking man to death and having other officers cover it up. I wonder what the outcome of IA investigation will be, hmmm...]

"We discovered it; we're fixing it," Tucker said in October.

The city is facing two federal civil rights lawsuits over the warrants issue. One complaint was filed on behalf of two men whose East Oakland homes were searched last year.

Jason Hodge, a spokesman for the men's attorney, said Thursday that Russo's announcement "strengthens and validates our case. The city does not have a leg to stand on. They had a number of rogue officers who are basically trampling on the rights of Oakland residents, and now they're going to have to pay."

The other civil complaint is a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs, including Reginald Oliver, 39. Prosecutors were forced to drop a charge of illegally possessing ammunition against Oliver after discovering that the search warrant for his home had been obtained by an officer who made intentionally false and/or misleading statements on an affidavit to a judge, the suit said.

Both suits name Officer Karla Rush, an eight-year officer who sources said is among those the city wants to fire. The names of the other officers were not made public.

Mary Sansen, an attorney for the officers, blasted the city Thursday, saying the blame rests with police commanders who she said failed to train officers on how to write search-warrant affidavits properly.

"The fact that I have anybody who's being terminated over this case is just simply outrageous," Sansen said. "Some of my officers have routinely been denied any form of training. I have clients who are writing search warrants who have never been to search-writing school, who have been expected to pick up as they go."

The search-warrant issue was discussed Thursday at a court hearing in San Francisco before U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson. The judge is overseeing department reforms in the wake of the Riders scandal, which involved a group of officers accused of planting evidence and beating suspects in West Oakland.

Two criminal trials of three former officers ended in mistrials. The case led to a $10.5 million civil settlement with citizens who said they were abused by the officers, along with a court order mandating the reforms that Henderson is overseeing.

An independent monitoring team created as part of the effort said in a report last week on the warrants issue that, "Although the detection and investigation of this alleged misconduct reflects well on the department, the underlying misconduct, if true, is clear indication that the organizational and community values that have been integrated into some parts of the department have not yet taken root throughout OPD."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/16/BAVV15BGOJ.DTL


Apparently the deputy chief/kicking incident happened 9 years ago......

Brian

Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:26:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
those officers are just building thier street cred ..

   many here.. many even cops agree with that ,


How? By shooting an unarmed man in the back? Wow.


That was a BART PD officer, not Oakland PD - different departments

Brian




Same town and culture of corruption. Oakland PD was the one investigating the BART murder.


So BART should pay $25M for OPD mistakes?

The two different departments can have completely different cultures even though they are located in the same area.  Would you claim Piedmont PD has the same culture as Oakland PD?

Brian
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:26:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:

Apparently the deputy chief/kicking incident happened 9 years ago......

Brian



Wow, I did not know it LEO land that if you murder someone and 9 years go by, it does not matter that you are still on the job.

I would think a person concerned with enforcing state law would want this person brought to justice. Oh yeah, that's right. He has a badge and conspiracy/murder are given a pass.
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:28:05 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:

So BART should pay $25M for OPD mistakes?

Brian


Of course not. BART will pay $ for its own corruption and Oakland PD will pay for its corruption.

Class-action lawsuit filed in response to Oakland police search

The Oakland Police Department faces a second federal civil rights lawsuit filed by drug suspects who said their homes were searched by officers who obtained search warrants by providing false information to judges. ...

Officers "repeatedly violated the constitutional rights of citizens by fabricating information in reports, providing false and/or intentionally misleading information in warrant affidavits to the court," said the latest suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, named the city of Oakland and Officers Karla Rush and Alan Leal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/BA0D13TCP8.DTL
Link Posted: 1/27/2009 9:29:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Maybe Chief does not represent the community accurately.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top