Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/3/2006 9:14:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 9:15:18 AM EDT by AR15fan]
Baltimore Officer Faulted In False Arrest



JULIE BYKOWICZ,
The Baltimore Sun

It seemed like it would be a routine stolen vehicle report. Joseph Lyle walked outside his West Baltimore home a little more than a year ago, couldn't find his Chevy van and called the police.

But by the end of the day, Lyle, then 69, was arrested by an officer who didn't believe his story and sent to jail for 28 hours.

This week, a Baltimore jury awarded Lyle $1 million after finding the patrol officer, Y. W. Kim, responsible for false arrest and false imprisonment. The award comes after the city paid out $3.5 million last year and $5 million in 2004 in judgments and settlements connected with lawsuits against the Baltimore Police Department.

"I called for help, and he locked me up," Lyle testified. "It just hurts. I never expected anything like that to happen to me."

City Solicitor Ralph S. Tyler yesterday called the jury's verdict "wrong and excessive." He said the city would file post-trial motions and, if necessary, an appeal.

Matt Jablow, a police spokesman, declined to comment. Kim, who joined the department in September 2001, now works in the Southwestern District's warrants unit.

During the Baltimore Circuit Court civil trial, which began Tuesday afternoon and ended late Wednesday, Lyle's attorneys portrayed their client as a law-abiding, tax-paying grandfather who had fallen victim to an all-too-common city crime - only to become a victim of a "malicious" police officer.

"Officer Kim decided that [Lyle's] dignity meant nothing to him," attorney Timothy M. Dixon said in his opening statement. Dixon and Neal M. Janey Jr. represented Lyle.

Lyle testified he had come home from Christmas shopping late Dec. 22, 2004, parked and locked his van a few doors down from his home in the 2100 block of Tucker Lane, and discovered it missing the next day, as he was preparing to leave for a doctor's appointment.

He called the city's 311 nonemergency police number, and Kim came to take a stolen vehicle report. The officer returned later that day to tell Lyle that his van had turned up in the city impound lot.

During that second meeting, according to Kim's testimony, Lyle had a different story.
Should haver tape recorded that interview, officer.

Kim testified that Lyle told him that perhaps an ex-girlfriend who lived in the neighborhood from which the van was towed had used it. Lyle said he had only made the stolen vehicle report, Kim testified, to hide from his current girlfriend the fact that his ex-girlfriend still had keys to the van.

Lyle disagreed in his testimony, insisting he had said no such thing and that it was the officer who had suggested that version of events. Lyle testified that Kim had threatened to arrest him if he didn't admit that the ex-girlfriend had used the van.

Believing the initial report of a stolen vehicle to be a ruse, Kim handcuffed Lyle and charged him with making a false statement to an officer.

"It was obvious that Mr. Lyle had lied," Kim testified. "I had enough probable cause to place him under arrest."

Lyle was taken to a police station house and then to Central Booking and Intake Center where, he testified, he spent 28 hours - much of it sleeping on the floor - before a commissioner released him without bail. Prosecutors dropped the charge against Lyle on Jan. 12, 2005.

There were indications that Lyle's van had been stolen, according to court testimony. Its windows were broken. Fishing poles, tools and a television that Lyle kept inside were gone. A bag of clothes intended for Goodwill had been tossed all over the interior.

But one of Kim's attorneys, David F. Owens, told jurors in his closing argument that whether the van was stolen was not the issue.

He urged jurors to believe Kim's assertion that Lyle had been lying about who had access to the van. The lawyer said Lyle had led the officer astray by not initially telling him that an ex-girlfriend may have been using it, meaning that Kim had probable cause to arrest him for making a false statement.

"If it was stolen at all," Owens said, "it wasn't stolen from where he said it was."

As for the arrest and the time the elderly man spent in lockup, Owens told jurors, "Sure, he may look like your grandfather, but he was treated like every other person who was arrested."

BTW: "stolen vehicle" reports have to be the most common false police report. Usually filed by someone who was in a hit & run crash, or their car was towed and they dont want to be responsible for the towing fees.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:23:14 AM EDT
Always tape all ineractions with the public, always.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:27:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Always tape all ineractions with the public, always.




I have a question. If you ask a police officer if they are recording you, can they lie about it. I mean can they say "no" if they really are?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:30:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USGI_45:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Always tape all ineractions with the public, always.




I have a question. If you ask a police officer if they are recording you, can they lie about it. I mean can they say "no" if they really are?



Yep. (might depend on your local state law)

Tape recording conversations have saved my ass more than once. I even got an emergency room doc fired once because of what he said that I had on tape.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:40:31 AM EDT
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:44:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:48:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:52:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?



I could have cared less if Joe Public taped me. I always conducted myself as if I was being taped, becuase it was, mine.

I would say less than 50% of the cops I know used tape recorders. And not every cop car has a recording device such as video/audio.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:54:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By USGI_45:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Always tape all ineractions with the public, always.




I have a question. If you ask a police officer if they are recording you, can they lie about it. I mean can they say "no" if they really are?



Yep. (might depend on your local state law)

Tape recording conversations have saved my ass more than once. I even got an emergency room doc fired once because of what he said that I had on tape.




Oh see I had no idea. Thanks. Just incase in the future I will always just nod my head.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 9:57:22 AM EDT
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:00:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?



A simple answer to your question can be found by researching your state's eavesdropping statutes.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:00:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 10:02:11 AM EDT by USGI_45]

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?




it sounds like it really depends on your states laws. Fuck it, dont talk to the police anyway. If they are talking to you, they dont want to be friends.


ETA Bostons gun bible has a good section on dealing with LE. IIRC you might check it out
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:01:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?



A simple answer to your question can be found by researching your state's eavesdropping statutes.



Ok but it's eavesdropping if a citizen does it & not when a police officer does it?
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:02:05 AM EDT
Good response Bama-Shooter. I told my son, the new trooper, to always act like he is being video taped, that way, if he is, it won't make any difference. I have a problem with officers that don't like to be video taped. Most are probably trying to hide something.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:02:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?



Depends on the state law. Here anyone can record a conversation so long at least one person who is part of the conversation knows the conversation is being recorded. And yes the recording can include statements pre-miranda warning.

ie. It would be illegal to leave a tape recorder in a room to tape record the conversation if no one in the room knew the conversation was being recorded.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:03:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



In Texas, only one party needs to know.

Every time I have given a statement to the police, I reread it and get an OK from the cop to initial it. I have never had any issue with a written statement and I have never had any issue with a cop not wanting me to verify that I had said what he had written down. This just makes it simple for everyone.

Of course, I am not smoking crack, running down nuns in a school zone, and so forth so I am not too terribly concerned about being "misinterpreted" by the police.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:06:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?



Depends on the state law. Here anyone can record a conversation so long at least one person who is part of the conversation knows the conversation is being recorded. And yes the recording can include statements pre-miranda warning.

ie. It would be illegal to leave a tape recorder in a room to tape record the conversation if no one in the room knew the conversation was being recorded.



Ok thanks for explaining it.

My cell phone can record an hour of mono audio. Handy feature. =)
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:41:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skebe:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?



Depends on the state law. Here anyone can record a conversation so long at least one person who is part of the conversation knows the conversation is being recorded. And yes the recording can include statements pre-miranda warning.

ie. It would be illegal to leave a tape recorder in a room to tape record the conversation if no one in the room knew the conversation was being recorded.



Ok thanks for explaining it.

My cell phone can record an hour of mono audio. Handy feature. =)



You need to check YOUR state laws concerning this subject.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:48:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By skebe:

My cell phone can record an hour of mono audio. Handy feature. =)



You need to check YOUR state laws concerning this subject.



Rgr that. Will do.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:16:33 AM EDT
Washington State law does not permit the recording of an interaction with the police, even with their permission.

28 hours is a long time to stay in jail. Its hard to stay awake that long, and I wouldn't want to go to sleep in a tank.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:58:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/3/2006 12:33:35 PM EDT by danpass]
I'll record whoever I want to. Go ahead and do the same to me, I'll say the same thing either way, I've got nothing to hide and those who do NEED to be recorded.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 3:44:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?



Not all patrol cars have the Patrol Video systems and they often malfunction. As for the portable audio recorders. Some guys get tired of spending a couple thousand dollars a year on microcassett tapes and AA batteries, then cataloging the used tapes for years becuase you never know which tape is the one that disproves a false allegation of misconduct.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 10:57:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USGI_45:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Always tape all ineractions with the public, always.




I have a question. If you ask a police officer if they are recording you, can they lie about it. I mean can they say "no" if they really are?



Probably, and after they say "No" going ahead and saying any stupid stuff is likely not a very good idea.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 11:33:10 PM EDT
This does not suprise me and I am glad he got his award. Southwestern District are horrid and very unprofessional. We run a business and have sent 6 commendations about Central District officers and a single complaint about SW District shitbags in the last 2 years (yes, we really do send our thanks in writing to both the Mayor's Office and the Police Comissioner every time they have helped us). We get armed robbed a lot ( (twice in the last 6 months)
We have very good relations with the local LEOs. They are welcome and are made to feel welcome in our business when they do community patrols or just stop in off duty. We even have county LEOs who frequent our establishment. SW district has a very bad reputation here and they deserve it. I have personally seen them cuss out an 80 year old man and a woman who wanted to file a police report and were very polite.

While I am sure that SW has some very professional and brave people, they just have too many bad apples. SW district has issues that should be resolved.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 5:53:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?



Not all patrol cars have the Patrol Video systems and they often malfunction. As for the portable audio recorders. Some guys get tired of spending a couple thousand dollars a year on microcassett tapes and AA batteries, then cataloging the used tapes for years becuase you never know which tape is the one that disproves a false allegation of misconduct.




+1 on keeping up with the tapes. It's a complete bitch.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 5:56:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:18:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



Double standard; at least it is in MA...



SECRET TAPING OF POLICE TRAFFIC STOP VIOLATES STATE'S WIRETAP ACT

A motorist who secretly recorded an encounter with police during a routine traffic stop violated the state's wiretap law, Massachusetts' highest state court has ruled. (Commonwealth v. Hyde, July 13, 2001.) Although the case does not involve a media defendant, its outcome could have ramifications for newsgathering by members of the press, at least in Massachusetts.

On Oct. 26, 1998, around 10:30 p.m., Michael Hyde was stopped by an Abington, Mass., police officer. The officer had noticed that Hyde's car had an excessively loud exhaust system and was missing a light over the rear license plate. Unbeknownst to the officer, Hyde turned on a tape recorder and recorded the ensuing interaction.

Three other officers arrived at the scene of the stop, which quickly became confrontational. Hyde and his passenger, Daniel Hardesty, were ordered out of the car. Hardesty was frisked, and both were detained for 15 to 20 minutes.

Police eventually allowed Hyde and Hardesty to leave. They were not charged with any crime, nor did Hyde receive a traffic citation. Six days later, however, Hyde took his tape recording to the police station and filed a formal complaint about the way he had been treated during the stop.

The police department initiated an internal investigation that ultimately exonerated the officers of any wrongdoing. It also sought a criminal complaint against Hyde for secretly recording the encounter in violation of the state's wiretapping law.

Hyde was tried before a jury and convicted of four counts of wiretapping. He appealed, but the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment.

Hyde argued that the wiretap statute was designed to protect privacy rights of individuals. According to Hyde, the encounter with the police did not involve any communications protected by the statute because, as police officers performing official police duties, the officers had no interest in or expectation of privacy in their statements during the stop.

Unlike the federal wiretap act and analogous laws in various other states, Massachusetts law prohibits the secret tape recording of any speech, even if the speaker had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that speech. According to the state's highest court, the Massachusetts law thus prohibits individuals from recording a conversation without the "permission or knowledge" of all parties to the conversation.

The court declined to recognize an exception for speech by police or other public officials acting in their official roles. Such an exception would open the door "even wider to electronic 'bugging' or secret audio tape recording," the court hypothesized, "of virtually every encounter or meeting between a person and a public official."

"Secret tape recording by private individuals has been unequivocally banned, and, unless and until the legislature changes the statute, what was done here cannot be done lawfully," the court concluded.

Two justices dissented. The law never was intended -- and had never before been used -- to outlaw the secret recording of a public exchange between a police officer and a citizen. "We hold police officers to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees, and their privacy interests are concomitantly reduced," the dissenters argued.
The dissenters added their observation that the ruling "threatens the ability of the press -- print and electronic -- to perform its constitutional role of watchdog." If Hyde had been a reporter, he would have been subject to the same penalties, they noted. "If the statute reaches actions by police officials acting in their public capacities in the plain view of the public, the legitimate news gathering of the media is most assuredly implicated," said the dissenters.

www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/august/nw0810-6.htm
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:49:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 6:51:09 AM EDT by usmc5593]
*
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:54:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 6:56:04 AM EDT by usmc5593]

Originally Posted By USGI_45:

Originally Posted By skebe:
Wait a sec.

Police can record the public, without the public's permission, (in addition to before reading the person their rights to remain silent), but the public can't record the same conversation without the police's permission?

Or do I need to go drink more coffee?




it sounds like it really depends on your states laws. Fuck it, dont talk to the police anyway. If they are talking to you, they dont want to be friends.

ETA Bostons gun bible has a good section on dealing with LE. IIRC you might check it out



That is a very harsh attitude!!!??
i am a LEO and i talk to a lot of people while on duty, they are just regular people like myself and i also talk to victims and suspects. Not every LEO is a dickhead or gonna put you in jail/give you a citation just cause he happens upon you and may try to talk to you. in my experience it's when people are dickheads first that things start to go south (not for the LEO). and with that being said i am not saying that the (dickheaded) citizen would be put in jail or given a citation i am just saying that when ever the person (dickheaded citizen) does need something from a LEO all the discretion that he is allowed by law to give, he probably won't cause of the first lasting impression that person with the bad attitude gave the LEO to begin with. i like to talk to people, that's one of the reasons i became a "cop". i have had many conversations w/ people who had no idea that i was a LEO so why would it be anything different if i were in uniform? does that make me somehow want to arrest every one i come in contact with??? NO

ie: if you talk to 1 "cop and he's a dickhead, maybe it's just him being a dickhead?
if EVERY "cop" you talk to is a dickhead, then maybe it's not them IT'S YOU???

but hey that's just my biased opinion
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:06:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?



Not all patrol cars have the Patrol Video systems and they often malfunction. As for the portable audio recorders. Some guys get tired of spending a couple thousand dollars a year on microcassett tapes and AA batteries, then cataloging the used tapes for years becuase you never know which tape is the one that disproves a false allegation of misconduct.


\



Sounds like a small price to pay to get out of a false allegation accusation. They would pay lawyer much more than that. Or is their defense paid for by the dept?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:55:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 6:55:32 PM EDT by Merlin]
Got pulled over by a AL state trooper a couple of months ago. He asked me to join him in his cruser. He had a wiz bang video recorder on his dash, we started talking about it. I asked him what he thought of it. His statement: Good for the troopers, good for the public. He liked it.

Got a warning, no ticket.

Lessons Learned: You can speed in a 4 cyl rock crawler.


Merlin
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:59:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By xxTAPxx:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I can't tape my interactions with police. That is a crime here. I have no idea why....



In some states all parties have to know that the conversation is being recorded. In some states only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded.

I've also read somewhere that there is no expectation in privacy when having a conversation with the police so the police can record without the other persons knowledge.



Every police offficer should carry a pocket tape recorder, always.



I agree with you, this is a very good policy, but I think the public should be able to tape the police as well. Most of the time it wont matter anyway because the police are already recording it. However one must wonder, if a cop habitually doesn't tape his interactions is this because he is irresponsible or something worse?



Not all patrol cars have the Patrol Video systems and they often malfunction. As for the portable audio recorders. Some guys get tired of spending a couple thousand dollars a year on microcassett tapes and AA batteries, then cataloging the used tapes for years becuase you never know which tape is the one that disproves a false allegation of misconduct.


\



Sounds like a small price to pay to get out of a false allegation accusation.



Some small town cops only make 12K a year. how much of your income are you willing to spend on civil risk management?
Top Top