Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights lawyer who sues police officers and other public officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, literally, almost every day. He is an expert in these “Section 1983 cases”, and can help you obtain whatever vindication of your federal Constitutional rights is available to you, based on the facts of your particular case. Almost every one of Mr. Steering’s civil rights cases involves allegations that some peace officer or other person acting under the color of state law, violated his client’s federal and state constitutional rights.

The federal statute that persons in the United States use every day to sue police officers and other persons acting under the color of state law, is “The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871“;  42 U.S.C. § 1983. As shown below, Section 1983 was a Reconstruction Era Law enacted by Congress along with other laws, to enforce the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee that the protections of the federal constitution apply to persons of African descent, as well as white person.

The Civil War and The Abolition Of Slavery:

The Reconstruction Amendments To The United States Constitution; Amendments 13, 14 And 15.

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Is A Post-Civil War Statute, That Was Enacted To Give Persons Of African Descent A Right To Sue For Damages In Federal Court For State Action That Violates Their Federal Constitutional Rights.

The federal statute that persons in the United States use every day to sue police officers and other persons acting under the color of state law, is “The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871″; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As shown below, Section 1983 was a Reconstruction Law enacted by Congress, to enforce the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee that the protections of the federal constitution apply to persons of African descent, as well as white persons. Our present “Federal Civil Rights Law” (42 U.S.C. § 1983) entitles anyone within the United States to sue in federal court for  violation of the rights guaranteed to them under the laws and Constitution of the United States, by state and local officials, acting under the color of state law. Section 1983 is that “appropriate legislation” referred to in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments; the Reconstruction amendments, that abolished slavery, and guaranteed that persons of African descent were, in fact, citizens, and for Congress to provide a federal civil remedy for the violation of any persons constitutional rights, by one acting under the color of state law. Today we use this statute to sue the police for anything from a false arrest, to a wrongful use of force by the police, to a malicious criminal prosecution, to free speech retaliation cases.

Ratification Of The Thirteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution.

In 1865 the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, that abolished slavery.

The Thirteenth Amendment provides:

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime      whereof   the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ratification Of The Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution.

In 1868, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, to mandate that recently freed slaves and other persons of African descent were citizens, with the same privileges and immunities as other citizens; including due process of the law; a fundamentally fair process, before a state shall deprive any person life, liberty or property:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides:

Amendment XIII

“The All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Ratification Of The Fifteenth  Amendment To The United States Constitution.

On March 30, 1870, the states ratified the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Amendment XV

Section 1.  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

                    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The “Third Enforcement Act” To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment; On April 20, 1871, Congress Passed The Ku Klux Klan Act;                         42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

April 20, 1971:

“An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes.”

42 U.S.C. § 1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory  decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

In the years after the Civil War, the South began to see the emergence of white terrorist groups. These organizations of composed mostly of veterans still aspiring to the goals of the Confederacy and their own Southern heritage, brought terror to freed blacks who looked to participate in the community as well as to their white allies. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was Congress’ attempt to put an end to the policies of terrorism, intimidation, and violence that the Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, and the Jayhawkers had been using. The law unfortunately failed to eradicate the Klan or abolish the continued use of fear tactics and brutality against blacks and supportive whites.

Founded as a fraternal organization by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan soon became a paramilitary group devoted to the overthrow of Republican governments in the South and the reassertion of white supremacy. Through murder, kidnapping, and violent intimidation, Klansmen sought to secure Democratic victories in elections by attacking black voters and, less frequently, white Republican leaders.

In response to Klan violence, Congress passed the first of “three Enforcement Acts” on May 31, 1870, to ensure that the provisions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were followed. The act, which made it a federal offense to attempt to deprive anyone of his civil rights, had little effect on the deteriorating situation. A second Enforcement Act, passed on February 28, 1871, established federal supervision over elections, but also did little to remedy the situation. After the failure in the House of a more powerful bill that would have given the federal government additional power to enforce election law, President Grant decided to intervene. The President met with Congressional leaders to urge the passage of stronger legislation, and on their recommendation, Grant issued a direct appeal to Congress requesting a new law. Grant’s appeal was successful, and Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act

Also known as the “Third Enforcement Act”, the bill was a controversial expansion of federal authority, designed to give the federal government additional power to protect voters. The act established penalties in the form of fines and jail time for attempts to deprive citizens of equal protection under the laws and gave the President the authority to use federal troops and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in ensuring that civil rights were upheld.

President Grant put the new legislation to work after several Klan incidents in May. He sent additional troops to the South and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina. Aided by Attorney General Amos T. Akermen and the newly created Department of Justice, extensive work was done to prosecute the Klan. While relatively few convictions were obtained, the new legislation helped to suppress Klan activities and ensure a greater degree of fairness in the election of 1872.

In 1871, Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), that gives any person whose federal Constitutional rights have been violated, a right to sue, any person who violated those rights under the color of state law, in a United States District Court. Section 1983 lawsuits can also be brought in a state court of general jurisdiction; See, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, a person who is falsely arrested by a peace officer (i.e. police officer, deputy sheriff, or some other officer who derives peace officer powers from state law), may sue the police officer under Section 1983, as well as under California state law. Similarly, one who is subjected to unreasonable force, a malicious criminal prosecution, or other Constitution violation, may sue in a federal or state court for redress under Section 1983.

Commonly referred to as “Section 1983 cases” or actions, this federal statute was enacted by Congress in response to a letter from President Ulysses S. Grant; complaining of the conditions in the Southern states, and asking Congress to create a remedy for persons of African descent (i.e. former slaves), for violation of their federal Constitutional rights, by persons acting under the color of state law; the Sheriff and his posse. That’s what the KKK did. The local Sheriff and his posse, deputized and KKK members, would murder former slaves, but their widows and children had no actual remedy in Southern state courts; no remedy that either a Court would allow to proceed, or if so allowed, that a Southern white Post Civil War jury, would award compensation for. Accordingly, President Grant wanted persons of African descent to have a remedy in federal court, for such atrocities. Similar criminal statutes were enacted by Congress for the same Constitutional violations, in 18 U.S.C. § 241 in 1966 (conspiracy to violate Constitutional rights), and 18 U.S.C. § 242 in 1870 (violation of federal Constitutional rights under color of law.

That statute is the vehicle that is used today to sue police officers and other governmental officials. It’s literally the most used law in the United States to sue police officers for violating the federal Constitutional rights of another.

Section 1983 Actions – Our Remedy For Federal Constitutional Violations.

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive Constitutional rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred in the federal Constitution itself. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989.) In other words, Section 1983 is a federal statute that doesn’t define any Constitutional rights, but merely provides a civil remedy for persons whose federal Constitutional rights have been violated. So, when the policeman falsely arrests you, you can sue the cop under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of your federal Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, as being the victim of an unreasonable seizure of your person. So, when the policeman beats-you-up for telling him that you know your rights and he has no right to search your car, you can sue him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of your federal Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment for an unreasonable seizure of your person under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, for violation of your First Amendment right to free speech / right to petition government for redress of grievances, for retaliating against you for your right to protest police actions. Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990.)

If you believe that a government official, including police officers, violated your Constitutional rights, please contact us about your case.

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering   •   4063 Birch Street   •   Suite 100   •   Newport Beach, CA 92660  map   •   © 1984-2016
Phone: (949) 474-1849   •   Fax: (949) 474-1883   •   Email: jerrysteering@yahoo.com   •   Web: www.SteeringLaw.com

Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Police Misconduct Attorney, who is a Specialist in Suing the Polce for Constitutional Violations such as False Arrest, the Use of Excessive Force, and Malicious Criminal Prosecutions. Mr. Steering has been suing the police since 1984. His law practice involves serving, among other places, the cities of Murietta and Temecula, the Riverside County cities shown below, and throughout the State of California.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is especially creepy in the Southwest Judicial District, that includes Riverside cities from Lake Elsinore to Temecula, and the rest of South County.

Victorville – Apple Valley Excessive Force Attorney Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Police Misconduct Attorney, who sues police officers for, among other things, the use of excessive force upon civilians. His law practice involves serving, among other places, Victorville, Apple Valley, and the San Bernardino County areas and cities shown below. Mr. Steering also represents persons in both civil and criminal cases and is an expert in brutality / excessive force and false arrest cases; both civil and criminal. Mr. Steering has successfully sued San Bernardino County police agencies successfully, for many years now.

POLICE BRUTALITY IN THE HIGH DESERT.

For whatever reason, police brutality in the Victor Valley has gone off of the charts. The City of Victorville is the hotbed these days for crazed cops, who apparently really take great pleasure in shooting innocents, and beating and false arresting their “prey.”

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department contracts with the City of Apple Valley for their police services, and if your a fan of outrageous police shootings, beating and false arrest, Victorville is the place for you.

In 2015 these violent crazed deputies of the High Desert were caught on video recording viciously beating a man named Francis Pusok who literally attempted to escape from them on horseback.

There was a Sheriff’s Department helicopter that was flying over the foot pursuit by the deputies so when the news helicopter was flying over the Sheriff’s Department helicopter the deputies didn’t know that the news helicopter was there. As a result the deputies carried on their vicious and brutal attack of Mr. Pusok, such as the deputy seen literally kicking the surrendering suspect directly in his testicles. See, “DA files charges against 3 deputies in Francis Pusok beating“.

Had the news helicopter not been there and secreted by the noise of the Sheriff’s Department chopper, Mr. Pusok would have been charged with at least violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 69; using force and violence to prevent / attempt to prevent public officer from performing duty of their office (See, “Cal. Penal Code Section 69; The Hammer Of Oppression – Police Misconduct Attorney“); standard operating procedure for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

These deputies know that when they beat, torture or even kill civilians, even totally innocent ones, that San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos will prosecute their victims with some sort of “resistance offense” to beat them down (i.e. the financial costs and emotional toll of having to defend oneself on bogus criminal charges) to take a plea that will preclude the victim of police abuse from successfully suing the deputies for their constitutional violations. See, “”The “Contempt of Cop Game”; How Well Can You Play?“”. On May 15, 2013 District Attorney Ramos stated as much; that his office will not be dismissed any cases involving “Crimes Against Peace Officers” (“CAPO”) (See, “San Bernardino County DA Launches New Unit For Crimes Against Police Officers“).

Here are a few examples of several of the false arrest / excessive force cases that Mr. Steering has had against San Bernardino County:

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

ORANGE COUNTY POLICE MISCONDUCT SUMMARY

Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Police Misconduct Lawyer, serving, among other places, Orange County, and the Orange County cities shown below.

Mr. Steering has been suing police officers, and defending bogus criminal cases (mostly bogus crimes against police officers), for 29 years. The majority of our firm’s law practice, is suing police officers and other government officials, for claims such as false arrest, police brutality /excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other “Constitutional Torts” , including police whistleblowing cases (Cal. Labor Code Section 1102.5.)

Jerry L. Steering represents the victims of ”Police Misconduct”, such as thevictim of the use of excessive force and false arrests of innocents. Mr. Steering’s law practice serves Orange County, and the Orange County cities shown below, as well as Ventura County, LA County, San Diego County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County. He has successfully handled many against Orange County law enforcement agencies, including cases against the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and local police agencies, such as:

Gomez v. County of Orange, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, Central District of California (LA) (2011) obtained $2,163,799.53 for unreasonable force on convicted jail inmate;

Torrance v. County of Orange, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2010); obtained $380,000.00 for unreasonable force and false arrest;

Chamberlain v. County of Orange et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2009); obtained $600,000.00 for failure to protect pre-trial detainee in Orange County Jail;

Baima v. County of Orange, et al; U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2003); obtained $208,000.00 for false arrest / unreasonable force.

Celli v. County of Orange, et al; U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2009); obtained $200,000.00 for false arrest / unreasonable force.

Richard “Danny” Page v. City of Tustin , et al., U.S. District Court (Santa Ana) (1992); $450,000.00 for false arrest and unreasonable force.

Farahani v. City of Santa Ana; Mr. Steering obtained a $612,000.00 jury verdict against a Santa Ana Police Department officer for unreasonable force, for a single baton strike to a young man’s head. Farahani v. City of Santa Ana; United States District Court, Central District of California.

Butano v. County of Orange, et al.; U.S. Dist. Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana) (2013); $727,500.00 for false arrest and unreasonable force.

Sharp v. City of Garden Grove, Orange County Superior Court (2000): Mr. Steering obtained a $1,110,000.00 jury verdict against Garden Grove Police Department officers, along with a CHP officer and state parole agents, for the warrantless search of the body shop that was owned by the parolee’s father, and where the parolee worked when he wasn’t in prison. The parole department had denied GGPD Narcotics Bureau permission to do a “parole search” of the plaintiff father’s body shop, as they had no authority to do so. Parole agents can’t do (or authorize others to do) warrantless “parole searches” of places where parolees are employed. Imagine a parolee getting a job as a mechanic at Pep Boys. Could state parole agents and police officers do a parole search of Pep Boys? Of Course Not. State parole knew this, and they told GGPD Narcotics the same. However, GGPD Narcotics decided to use the pretext of a parole search, to do a full blown warrantless search of the Dad’s auto body shop, for a suspected meth lab, because the son / parolee’s parole officer wanted to violate the son’s parole for dirty drug tests, and was tired of waiting for GGPD to find him “cooking meth” at the Dad’s body shop GGPD had asked the Parole Agent not to violate the son / parolee’s parole, until they could catch him in the act of meth “cooking” at the Dad’s body shop; something that the mere appearance of in itself should be sufficient to dispel and such suspicion. The body shop was triangular, the hypotenuse of which, was wide open (no blinds or shades) to anyone standing on the sidewalk. The sidewalk side also had two wide entry bays, as did the rear side, the shop and doors were wide open all day, with all areas (save the lavatories) visible to any interested parties. The body shop also had an EPA approved vapor blower exhaust fan and roof portal, and any “dirty socks” odor from a meth lab, would have been blown all over the neighborhood. No reasonable officer would have really believed that the body shop was being used as a drug lab.

After several failed parole test drug tests by the son / parolee, his Parole Agent was getting more anxious to violate the son / parolee’s parole. So, the geniuses at the GGPD, the CHP and state parole (both members of OCATT; Orange County Auto-Theft task force.) They stormed into the body shop with SWAT / raid type gear, rifles and pistols blazing, ran-up from behind Mr. Sharp and pointed a shotgun at him. Then the cuffed-him (still at gunpoint) and made him get down onto the cement floor of his shop, with his hands cuffed behind him. One might imagine that this might result in knee injury to a 59 year old man, and one would be right. However, Mr. Sharp treated his own condition with health food supplements (Glucosamine Chondroitin). The constables then ransacked the body shop, with Mr. Sharp still cuffed, lying on the floor of his shop, with the neighboring businesses wondering why their business neighbor, who they always knew as a kind and generous man, was being treated like some despicable sub-human type, and in such a degrading and humiliating manner.

In addition to first claiming the the officers warrantless invasion of the shop and the seizure of Mr. Sharp (something ultimately rejected by the court) the cops also claimed that the search was justified as a warrantless search for stolen vehicle parts pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code § 2805; a real stretch (body shops don’t call in VIN numbers on cars brought in for repair. They are also neither U.S. Customs, nor the police. They’re not buying the car; they’re just fixing it.)

The Orange County Superior Court jury awarded Mr. Sharp $1,010,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of which was for punitive damages against the most culpable parole agent.) They didn’t believe the police; probably because they lied through their teeth, and finally violated someone who was just like one of them; the Orange County jurors (i.e. white, businessman with a trade, married High School sweetheart, enlisted in United States Marines, no criminal record, wife blond and very nice.) The GGPD officer who lead the raid on the body shop is now a Captain at GGPD.

Oliver v. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court, Santa Ana; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2012; (plaintiff won case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on their unlawful arrest claim; false arrest as matter of law.) Plaintiffs obtained $400,000.00 for four hour false arrest of father (and son), for father telling police that he didn’t know of his son hit a opossum with a shovel (which isn’t a crime anyway),so busted the father for violation of Cal. Penal Code 32 (i.e. “accessory to crime”, for not incriminating his son, for something that isn’t a crime. See, Oliver v. City of Anaheim; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Steering has also had many acquittals in Orange County Superior Court; especially in cases involving false arrests.

EXCESSIVE FORCE, FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CASES

Mr. Steering has been suing police officers, and defending bogus criminal cases of crimes against police officers, since 1984. The majority of our firm’s law practice, is suing police officers and other government officials, for claims such as false arrest, police brutality / excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other “Constitutional Torts“, and defending bogus criminal cases against the victims of such abuse by the police; almost always for the same incident that the civilian – victim sues for.

WHAT IS “EXCESSIVE FORCE”?

The Politics Of The Judge Or Jurors Are The Major Determinate Factor In Excessive Force Cases

In the real world, in real Courts with real juries and real judges, a determination as to whether a peace officer used “Excessive Force” in a any given situation, is as much of a political question, as a factual one. It is the trier of fact’s (the jury’s) political persuasion, their life experiences with law enforcement, and their world view, that is most likely the determinate factor in any a police brutality / excessive force cases.

Civilians who are (almost always falsely) accused of battering a peace officer, very often get criminally prosecuted for not cooperating with the beating fast enough, so as to constitute a “resisting” or “obstructing” or “delaying” of a peace officer engaged in the performance of his/her official duties; Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1); the most abused Section in the California Penal Code, and the most ambiguous, amorphous, and abused law in California (See our Tab for “Contempt of Cop Cases”, above.) The Section 148(a)(1) charge is either a throw-in for a more serious assault and battery of a peace officer charge (95% of which are bogus), or the base criminal charge itself.

Because of the ambiguous / amorphous language of Section 148(a)(1), a white jury has free reign to criminalize “failures of the attitude test“, when they believe that they would have acted otherwise (even though if some cops walked-up to them on the street and ordered them to prone-out and spread ‘em, they would throw a fit. ) A different jury, however, one not so white and Republican (the cops can do no wrong), say one in Compton, California, are likely to have a different view of the world, a different view of the police and a totally different verdict in an excessive force case.

Excessive Force In The Real World; The Rodney King Case.

Rodney King may have been and may represent a lot of things to a lot of people, but he still was a haphazard petty criminal. Let’s no make no mistake about that. He is not a role model or a martyr. He was just some man who got beat-up by the LAPD on March 3, 1991, whose beating happened to by video recorded by an amateur photographer. However, back in 1991, if you did have a video camera, it was most likely one that uses a full-sized VHS tape, and was used by propping it on top of one’s shoulder while filming. Nowadays, every 12 year old has an iPhone and could record a much better image. There are a lot of people getting beaten-up today by the police, but still, none that had the international impact than Rodney King’s beating did.

Rodney King, a man who first evaded a traffic stop by LAPD for errant driving, and who eventually stopped his vehicle, got his a__ kicked by pursuing LAPD officers. Mr. King’s beating was captured on a video recording, that showed several LAPD officers clobbering Mr. King with their batons, and beating and kicking him; all of it being obviously just plain wrong and cruel.

The Rodney King Case; The Jurors In Simi Valley Find No Wrong By Police.

LAPD police officers Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, and Theodore Briseno were criminally charged by LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti with using unreasonable force on a Rodney King, and other nasties. Mr. Garcetti was confident that his video recording of Rodney King’s beating showing outrageous force by the LAPD, that even the fine people of Simi Valley would see things his way, and that convictions of the LAPD officers was imminent.

However, the defendant officers obtained a change of venue, to the California Superior Court in Simi Valley, Ventura County, California. The media had already convicted the four cops who got criminally prosecuted for the March 3, 1991 beating, but the geniuses in the LA County District Attorney’s Office and those in the media forgot one thing; that even now, Simi Valley is only 1.26% African-American, and that most of them are probably cops or cop lovers (otherwise, they wouldn’t move there.) Convincing them that the Constables were the bad guys, and that the fleeing intoxicated motorist is the victim, is like trying to convince Billy Graham that there is no God. Sorry, you’re not going to do it.

On April 29, 1992 the jury in the Ventura County Superior Court (Simi Valley) criminal case, found that the defendant LAPD officers didn’t use “Excessive Force” upon Rodney King on March 3, 1991, and acquitted Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, and Theodore Briseno of all charges. LA went crazy.

Some people reacted with disbelief to the jury verdicts; others reacted in anger. A crowd outside the Ventura County Courthouse shouted “Guilty! Guilty!” as the defendants were escorted away by sheriff’s deputies. According to Rodney King’s bodyguard, Tom Owens, King sat “absolutely motionless” as he watched in “pure disbelief” the televised verdicts being read. A visibly angry Mayor Tom Bradley publicly declared, “Today, the jury told the world that what we all saw with our own eyes was not a crime.”

Sixty-two minutes after the King verdict, five black male youths entered a Korean-owned Pay-less Liquor and Deli at Florence and Dalton Avenues. The youths each grabbed bottles of malt liquor and headed out the door, where they were blocked by the son of the store’s owner, David Lee. One young man smashed Lee on the head with a bottle, while two others shattered the storefront with their thrown bottles. One of the youths shouted, “This is for Rodney King!” The deadly LA riots of 1992 were underway.

Events grew increasingly ugly. Black youths with baseball bats battered a car driven by a white. Another white driver was hit in the face by a chunk of concrete thrown threw his car windshield. Police faced gangs of rock and bottle-throwing youths. The taunting, missile-hurling crowds grew in size, forcing the police to beat a hasty retreat out of the riot area. The Florence-Neighborhood is left to the anarchy of the mob attacking helpless civilians.

Perhaps the most horrific image of the riots involved mild-mannered truck driver Reginald Denny. Denny was at the wheel of his eighteen-wheeler, carrying a load of sand and listening to country music, when at 6:46 P.M. he entered the intersection at Normandie and Florence. A helicopter overhead captured on videotape what occurred next. Denny was pulled from his truck into the street, where he was kicked and then beaten on the head with a claw hammer. The most vicious attack came from Damian Williams who smashed a block of concrete on Denny’s head at point-blank range, knocking him unconscious and fracturing his head in ninety-one places. The helicopter camera recorded Williams doing a victory dance as he gleefully pointed out Denny’s bloodied figure.

The Governor called-out the National Guard, who even deployed in full Combat gear, even in the County Courthouses. When the rioting finally ended five days later, fifty-four people (mostly Koreans and Latinos) were dead–the greatest death toll in any American civil disturbance since the 1863 Draft Riots in New York City. Hundreds of people (including sixty firefighters) were injured. Looting and fires had resulted in more than one billion dollars in property damage. Whole neighborhoods in south central LA, such as Korea town, looked like war zones. Over 7,000 persons were arrested.

Even as the rioting continued, President George Bush and Attorney General William Barr began the process of bringing federal charges against the four LAPD officers accused in the King case. On the day after the Simi Valley verdict, Bush issued a statement declaring that the verdict “has left us all with a deep sense of personal frustration and anguish.” In a May 1, 1993 televised address to the nation, Bush all but promised a federal prosecution of the officers.

The Rodney King Case; Here Come The Feds.

Prosecuting the officers on the federal charge of violating King’s civil rights accomplished two Bush Administration goals. The first goal was to control the rage that had developed in black communities. The second was to reduce demands from some in the civil rights community for sweeping investigations into police misconduct.

On May 7, federal prosecutors began presenting evidence to a LA grand jury. On August 4, the grand jury returned indictments against the three officers for “willfully and intentionally using unreasonable force” and against Koon for “willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault.” on King.

Unlike the Simi Valley jury, the federal jury was racially mixed. Although the defense made a considerable effort to exclude African-Americans, two blacks were seated as jurors. One of the two, Marian Escobel (“Juror No. 7), sent an early signal of the difficulty she would cause the defense when she was overheard strongly criticizing the defense’s treatment of other potential black jurors. In one of his most important trial rulings, Judge Davies denied a defense motion to remove Escobel from the jury–perhaps because he understood that the juror accurately perceived the defense conduct. A second problem for the defense resulted from their focus on excluding African-American jurors: they gave insufficient attention to identifying and excluding white jurors who were especially fearful of producing a verdict that would cause more rioting.

In addition to a more favorable jury, the prosecution had other advantages in the second trial. Clymer noted later that the government “had the advantage of seeing everything that had gone wrong in the first trial.” Clymer excluded from the witness list those witnesses who had backfired in Simi Valley. He avoided juror suspicion that the prosecution was hiding something by calling Rodney King to the stand. He came up with a medical expert who would prove King’s facial injury came from a baton blow, not the asphalt. He identified a credible use-of-force expert, Mark Conta, who countered the testimony of the defense’s expert. He used cross-examination to suggest that defense police witnesses were friends seeking to bail the defendants out of a tight spot. Finally, he presented new and potentially damaging facts to present to the jury, such as Powell taking King on a ninety-minute detour to Foothill Station after leaving Pacifica Hospital, rather than directly to the USC Medical Center, as Koon had requested. Clymer hoped that the jury might conclude the detour was made to show off their injured “trophy.”

King may have been an ex-con who had given wildly different accounts of his beating, but he came across on the stand as an uneducated man was either too drunk or confused to remember events, not as a sophisticated liar. Through King’s testimony, the jurors saw a man who seemed to have been in genuine fear of his life. He also raised the issue of race. Although he at first had denied that race had anything to do with his beating, he told the jury that as he was being hit, the officers “were chanting either ‘What’s up killer? How do you feel killer? [or] What’s up nigger?” Asked whether the word used was “killer” or “nigger,” King answered, “I’m not sure.” Watching King testify, defense attorney Stone worried. He saw King as “very polite and mild-mannered and thoughtful” and that, he said, “spells credibility.”

On April 10, 1993 two LAPD officers, Sgt. Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, were convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; violation of federal Constitutional rights under the color of law; felonies, for beating-up Rodney King. The Rodney King convictions would reshape the entire issue of the excessive use of force by the police in America. Unfortunately, White Republicans don’t see the world any differently.

LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.

The United States Supreme Court has defined “Excessive Force” as follows:

“Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right “to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures” of the person . . . . . . . Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ” ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ ” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, 105 S.Ct., at 1699, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2642, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22-27, 88 S.Ct., at 1880-1883. Because “the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8-9, 105 S.Ct., at 1699-1700 (the question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of . . . seizure”).” (See, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989.)

“The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S., at 20-22, 88 S.Ct., at 1879-1881. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137-139, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 1723-1724, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S., at 21, 88 S.Ct., at 1879 (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, “it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard”). An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See, Scott v. United States, supra, 436 U.S., at 138, 98 S.Ct., at 1723, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).”

In Graham, we held that claims of excessive force in the context of arrests or investigatory stops should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendments objective reasonableness standard, not under substantive due process principles. 490 U.S., at 388, 394. Because police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, id., at 397, the reasonableness of the officers belief as to the appropriate level of force should be judged from that on-scene perspective. Id., at 396. We set out a test that cautioned against the 20/20 vision of hindsight in favor of deference to the judgment of reasonable officers on the scene. Id., at 393, 396. Graham sets forth a list of factors relevant to the merits of the constitutional excessive force claim, requir[ing] careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Id., at 396. If an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed.” (See, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), Kennedy, J.)

So, the Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy writing for the Majority) has essentially defined “excessive force” as basically force that is “unreasonable” in the abstract; that is, force that is greater than the amount of force that a reasonably well trained officer would have used under the same circumstances. Not so bad. Right? Not really. Here’s why.

THE PROBLEM WITH GRAHAM’S OBJECTIVE “REASONABLE OFFICER IN THE ABSTRACT STANDARD” IN THE REAL WORLD – THE ANALYSIS FOR WHETHER YOU CAN ACTUALLY SUE THE OFFICER FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE ISN’T ALL THAT OBJECTIVE.

The problem with the description of how what excessive force is defined, is not the Supreme Court’s strong emphasis on the officer’s conduct being based on an “objective” standard; they hypothetical reasonable officer in the abstract. The problem is that this claim of objective reasonableness is bogus, for the subject belief of the subject officer is nonetheless considered in the excessive force analysis.

As shown above in the last sentence of the block quote from Saucier v. Katz:

“If an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed.” (See, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).)

How can the standard really be an objective one, if the subject officer’s mistaken yet is considered at all? How can one mistakenly but reasonably believe something? What Saucier really says, and what that case was all about, is whether a reasonably well trained officer in the abstract, could have reasonably believed, that a particular use of force is reasonable, when the same reasonably well trained officer in the abstract, would believe that the use of force was unreasonable? Huh? This is more Orwellian newspeak:

“The concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular police conduct. It is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts. An officer might correctly perceive all of the relevant facts but have a mistaken understanding as to whether a particular amount of force is legal in those circumstances. If the officer’s mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable, however, the officer is entitled to the immunity defense.” See, Saucier v. Katz; Majority Opinion by Justice Kennedy.

So, according to Justice Kennedy, although the reasonable force determination is one that is to be made in the abstract, when it comes to whether a particular police officer should be held liable for his Constitutional violations, objectivity goes out the window, and a reasonably mistaken belief by a particular defendant officer, is a sufficient defense to civil liability? So, one can reasonably act unreasonably. George Orwell would be proud of the Justice Kennedy’s fluency with newspeak.

THE PROBLEM WITH GRAHAM’S OBJECTIVE “REASONABLE OFFICER STANDARD” IN THE REAL WORLD – THE WATCHMAN GETS TO MAKE HIS OWN RULES THAT REGULATE HIS OWN CONDUCT

The problem is, that the standards in the police profession for what is “reasonable” or otherwise proper police conduct in a given situation, are generally neither the creature of legislation (i.e. state law requiring the audio recording of custodial police interrogations) nor the product of any judicially created mandate, duty, or prohibition (i.e. Constitutional limits on conduct and judicially created “exclusionary rule”.) The conduct of “the objectively reasonable officer”; that standard that the Supreme Court attempted to describe in Graham v. O’Connor and Saucier v. Katz, is created by the very persons whose conduct the Fourth Amendment is supposed to impose limits on. Thus, in a very real sense, the Supreme Court has set the standard (“objectively reasonable officer”) that the Fourth Amendment requires, but has delegated the details of what’s reasonable or not, to the police.

It’s letting the regulated enact their own regulations. It’s like letting the local power company, set the rate of profit that they should make; set the formula for how the amount of profit is determined; set how much they can spend on public relations (since they’re a monopoly), and how, when, by whom and in what manner, they should be inspected, what they can and can’t do in their industry, and every other aspect of the business. If they want to all use tasers on civilians, then that’s reasonable. If they all want to pepper-spray persons because their hands in their pockets, then that’s reasonable. If they want to prone-out everyone at gun point that they detain, then that’s reasonable. At the end of the day, in the real world police world, if the technique, method, procedure, policy or practice reduces the danger level to the officer, you can bet that, eventually, they will find a way to justify such technique, method, procedure, policy or practice , and make such otherwise unreasonable behavior, “reasonable”, for no other reason than the police would prefer to act that way; Constitutional or not. You see the problem. The police have an old slogan: “It’s better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.” It’s another way of saying, I’ll act in a way that is in my self interest; not yours, and if I happen to trample your Constitutional rights, so be it.

THE PROBLEM WITH GRAHAM’S OBJECTIVE “REASONABLE OFFICER STANDARD” IN THE REAL WORLD – QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

As shown in the last sentence of the quote from Saucier v. Katz, immediately above:

“If an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed.” (See, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).) What does that mean? It means whie

In a nutshell, the Qualified Immunity is an immunity from a lawsuit for violation of a civilian’s Constitutional rights, when those rights were actually violated, but a reasonably well trained police officer could have believed that his conduct did not constitute such Constitutional violation. So, even if the police officer actually violated your Constitutional Rights, he may be immune from suit, because the law was not clearly established enough at the time of the violation, to hold a police officer liable for his conduct. This is a doctrine “contrived” by the conservative members of the Supreme Court (since 1981), to ensure that you can’t do anything about (or at least do a whole lot less about) your Constitutional Rights being trampled by the government.

So, for example, if the police come-up with a whole new technique to restrain people, such as a with a taser, or pepper-spray, or pepper-balls, or water-balls, or hobbling (police hog tying), or a shock-belting, or stun-gunning, the officer may very well be entitled to qualified immunity from being sued for the misuse of any of the above-mentioned devices; not because its “reasonable”, but because the police just use those devices in such manners; thereby giving the Courts an excused to relieve the police officer from liability for the damage caused by his violation of the Constitutional Rights of civilians:

“Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)) . . . Accordingly, we must resolve immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Pearson, 129, S.Ct. at 815.

An officer will be denied qualified immunity in a 1983 action only if (1) the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury, show that the officers conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident such that a reasonable officer would have understood her conduct to be unlawful in that situation. Saucier, 533 at 201-02; Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011.) To assist the development of constitutional precedent, we exercise our sound discretion to follow Saucier’s conventional two-step procedure and address first whether the Torres Family has alleged the violation of a constitutional right. See, Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818.

The qualified immunity analysis involves two separate steps. First, the court determines whether the facts show the officers conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001.) If the alleged violate a constitutional right, then the defendants are entitled to immunity and the claim must be dismissed. However, if the alleged conduct did violate such a right, then the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful action. Id.

A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Id., at 202. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. While the order in which these questions are addressed is left to the courts sound discretion, it is often beneficial to perform the analysis in the sequence outlined above. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 (2009.) Of course, where a claim of qualified immunity is to be denied, both questions must be answered.

When determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact at the summary judgment stage, the court must take all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In the context of qualified immunity, determinations that turn on questions of law, such as whether the officers had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support their actions, are appropriately decided by the court. Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 1993.)

However, a trial court should not grant summary judgment when there is a genuine dispute as to the facts and circumstances within an officers knowledge or what the officer and claimant did or failed to do. Id.” (Saucier v. Katz, supra.)

So, according to Justice Kennedy, although the reasonable force determination is one that is to be made in the abstract, when it comes to whether a particular police officer should be held liable for his Constitutional violations, objectivity goes out the window, and a reasonably mistaken belief by a particular defendant officer, is a sufficient defense to civil liability? So, one can reasonably act unreasonably.

WHY THE POLICE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE THEIR VICTIMS

Unfortunately, because of institutional pressures (i.e. “ratting out fellow officer not a good career move), and the obvious political and practical consequences of not backing-up the their fellow officers, the norm in today’s police profession, is for peace officers to falsely arrest their “victims”, and to author false police reports to procure the bogus criminal prosecutions (i.e. to literally “frame” others) of those civilians whose Constitutional rights and basic human dignity have been violated; to justify what they did, and to act in conformity with that justification. The excessive force victims get criminally prosecuted, for crimes that they didn’t commit; usually for crimes such as “Resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duties (Cal. Penal Code148(a)(1)), assault on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 240 / 241), “battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b)) (which is almost always, in reality, battery by a peace officer; otherwise known as “Excessive Force” or “Unreasonable Force”), and resisting officer with actual or threat of violence (Cal. Penal § Code 69.) Section 69 is a “wobbler” under California law; a crime that the government can charge as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This charge is usually reserved for cases in which the police use substantial force on the innocent arrestee (the real “victim”), and need to falsely claim more violent / serious conduct by the “victim” to justify their outrages.

So, for example, the crime of “battery on a peace officer” (Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b)), is almost always, in reality, “battery by a peace officer”; otherwise known as “Excessive Force”; an “unreasonable seizure” of a person under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (See, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).)

If you have been the victim of Excessive Force by a police officer, please check our Section, above, entitled: “What To Do If You Have Been Beaten-Up Or False Arrested By The Police“. Also, please click on “Home“, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you need to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free telephone consultation.

MOST FALSE ARRESTS ARE EFFORTS BY POLICE OFFICERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY, FOR OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS COMMITTED BY THEM

Police Misconduct is rampant and condoned and defended by the command structure of most, if not all, modern police agencies. Modern police agencies are afraid of losing their “power” in and over a community. That “power base”, is based in large part, on the public “supporting the police”. That popular support is based upon a belief by the body politic, that: 1) police officers have a difficult and dangerous job, 2) that they’re basically honest, 3) that only a small percentage of them would commit perjury, 4) that the force that the police use on people is almost always justified (if not legally, then morally), and that 5) police are capable of policing themselves. Although none of these beliefs are accurate, one cannot ignore the belief system of the majority of the white / affluent American populace, in understanding why police officers routinely, and without a second thought, falsely arrest civilians, and commit other outrages against innocents.

Wrongful police beatings, accompanied by their sister “false arrests”, are a common and every day occurrence. These beating / arrests are no longer limited to persons of color. Soccer Moms, airline pilots and school teachers, beware: because of the great (and ever expanding) powers being given to police officers by the Supreme Court, described below, in a very real way, you no longer have the right to question, protest or challenge police actions, since to do so usually results in your being physically abused and falsely arrested on trumped of charges of essentially, “Contempt Of Cop”; (i.e. maybe not getting on the ground fast enough, or failing to walk-over to the officer fast enough; some type of failing the attitude test.)

Unfortunately, because of institutional pressures (i.e. “ratting out fellow officer not a good career move) and the obvious political and practical consequences of not backing-up the their fellow officers, the norm in today’s police profession, is for peace officers to falsely arrest civilians, and to author false police reports, to procure the bogus criminal prosecutions (i.e. to literally “frame”) of those civilians whose Constitutional rights and basic human dignity have been violated by them. After all; how would it look if a police officer beat you up, and didn’t arrest you. Because most police officers, including those that step-over Constitutional “line in the sand” (i.e. beating another, falsely accusing civilians of crimes), are not true sociopaths, when they falsely charge you with a crime, it isn’t usually too serious of one. Most are bogus claims for violation of Cal. Penal Code 148(a)(1), because the crime of “resisting or obstructing or delaying a peace officer who’s engaged in the performance of his/her duties” is incredibly ambiguous, and can (ingenuously or ignorantly) be applied to almost any conduct by a person (i.e. the defendant yelled at me for restraining [torturing] the “suspect”, so he delayed me from arresting the “suspect” because I had to look his way and take a protective stance in the events that the defendant charged at me.)

WHY THE COPS CAN GET USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT; AMERICANS’ BELIEF SYSTEM ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS

Most Americans have a deeply held belief that police officers don’t beat-up civilians who don’t deserve it. People believe what they want to believe, and they don’t want to believe that the persons entrusted with their safety, routinely beat-up and “frame” innocents; often for fun, or to bolster their frail egos. However, in the real world, many police officers do just that. A substantial minority of peace officers actually do beat, torture and falsely arrest those that defy their authority, or somehow bruise their fragile egos. Thus, in the real world, the crime of “battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b)), is almost always, in reality, battery by a peace officer; otherwise known as “excessive force” or “Unreasonable Force”, and the crime of resisting arrest (resisting or obstructing or delaying a peace officer; Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)), is almost always the choice crime to arrest a civilian who committed no crime. The police can fairly easily obtain convictions of their victims for “resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer”, because almost any conduct by a civilian can be characterized as falling within the ambit of that statute; especially conduct that jurors find themselves believing is not the way that they would have handled that situation.

WHY THE COPS CAN GET USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT; THE JURORS

To attack the jury system is to attack an institution that has been the primary barrier between oppression and freedom in the English speaking world since 1215. This is not an attack on the jury system. It is merely a reflection as to why in false arrest,unreasonable force and malicious prosecution cases, The way that a jury decides these type of cases is as much political, as it is an exercise in fact finding. The persons who ultimately get to sit on juries in these cases, have no real idea as to how police officers actually act, and have no idea how truly institutionally corrupt, police agencies really are when it comes to defending the County / City coffers and their and the politicians’ images.

In both civil and criminal cases, the parties have some say in the composition of the jury. The jury pool are supposedly called randomly, and the Court and the lawyers get to ask them questions. That part of a trial, questioning potential jurors, is called voir dire, that in French means, to speak the truth. Each side gets a certain numbers of peremptory challenges, that they can use to strike persons from sitting as jurors. In a federal court civil rights case, each side usually gets four peremptory challenges. So far, sounds fair. Here’s the rub.

Most people who have actually seen police officers beat-up a civilian have a lasting terrible feeling about police misconduct. Almost invariably, when they are asked by the lawyers or the Court about whether their prior experience with police misconduct will cause them to be prejudice against either side, they almost always say Yes. Most such people who have seen police beatings and the false prosecutions of their friends, are so deeply affected, that they invariably tell the Court that they are biased against police officers (in this type of case), and that they cant really put-aside that bias and be completely fair and impartial. Once they make that statement, any such jurors are then routinely excused for cause from sitting on that jury. Thus, the jurors who would more likely be favorable to the civil rights plaintiff (or criminal defendant accused of some crime against a peace officer), is excused for cause from sitting on the jury. The lawyer defending the case for the police doesn’t even had to use one of their jury peremptory challenges to get rid of that juror. All of the others jurors who do get to sit, are people who have never seen police misconduct; leaving a jury that, unfortunately, have no concept of the way that police, and police organizations, actually act.

Therefore, when Miss, Mrs. or Mr. Citizen gets falsely arrested, beaten-up or maliciously prosecuted by police agencies, and gets criminally prosecuted for conduct that often isn’t criminal (i.e. “creative use” of the California criminal statute Penal Code Section 148(a)(1)), these “sanitized jurors” will generally not believe that the police really did what Miss, Mrs. or Mr. Citizen claim that they did, unless Miss, Mrs. or Mr. Citizen’s attorney can really prove otherwise; real proof; like a video, audio, or a bus load of highly observant nuns with photographic memories who testified about clearly indefensible police conduct. That’s why the jury system rigged against persons victimized by the police; because the only people who ever get to sit in judgment in these type of cases as jurors, are persons who have never had a bad experience with a police officer, or and who has not seen outrageous police conduct. Their life experience tells them something that’s just not true; that police officer don’t beat people up unless they did something to deserve it. You, therefore, need great proof to dispel that belief by jurors.

WHY THE COPS CAN GET USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT; AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WE LIVE IN A POLICE STATE

If you think, as a practical matter, that you live in a free country, you’re wrong. We live in a police state; at least to a very appreciable degree. As a practical matter, the police can do whatever they want to you, and then procure the institution of a bogus criminal case against you. They typically author bogus police reports that claim that you committed some crime, like resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code §148(a)(1)) and/or battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b)), that results in a bogus criminal prosecution against you. They know that the District Attorney’s Office takes great pride in protecting the police from civil liability, by filing and prosecuting criminal action. They do this to beat you down; to make it so expensive for you to defend yourself on bogus criminal charges that carry little chance of actually being sentenced to jail, such as resisting arrest, that you end-up taking a plea bargain, that, in practical effect, bars your lawsuit by you for either false arrest, malicious prosecution, and, in most such cases, unreasonable force.

They also do this to protect themselves from internal discipline, and criminal liability for civil rights violations (18 U.S.C. § 242; violating a persons federal Constitutional rights under the color of state law.) The employing police agency will (almost) always deny that their officer engaged in wrongful conduct, especially in swearing contest type cases, where there is no video recording of the police beatings. Because the employing police agency will (almost) always back their officers by touting their (false) version of the story in order to avoid civil liability to the employing entity for the actions of their officers, it’s almost impossible to discipline them. For example, the City of Inglewood, California, fired Inglewood Police Department officer Jeremy Morse, for the video recording beating of a teenager at a gas station. When it came time for the civil suit against the City and the officers for the beating, the City contended that the officers acted properly. Accordingly, since the City took that position, fired officer Jeremy Morse sued the city, and won $2,1600,000.00 for his wrongful firing.

FALSE ARREST CASES – DON’T CALL THE COPS UNLESS YOU WANT SOMEONE AT LEAST IN JAIL, OR VERY POSSIBLY DEAD

All of use have broken some sort of law, but most of us don’t go around holding-up liquor stores. The odds are, that if you are inquiring about a police misconduct case, such as a false arrest case, that you fall into three basic categories of ways that the police came into contact with you, and then falsely arrested you, or worse.

Former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, along with a retired LASD Captain, were indicted on May 13, 2015 by a federal Grand Jury for Obstructing and Conspiring to Obstruct a federal Grand Jury investigation of the rampant torturing of inmates at the LA County Jail (See, Paul Tanaka Indictment of May 13, 2015.) That’s not the end of it. Former LASD Deputy Sheriff Noel Womack pleaded guilty in June of 2015 to federal charges of lying to the FBI about systemic LASD torturing and framing of inmates at the LA County Jails. In 2014, six LASD Deputy Sheriffs were convicted of obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the torturing of prisoners at the LA County Jails.

Lee Baca resigned from office over the scandal at the LA County Men’s Central Jail involving the Indictment of 18 LASD Deputy Sheriffs and their Supervisors for torturing prisoners and obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the same. On February 10, 2016, Sheriff Baca was Indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); lying to the FBI regarding his knowledge of a scheme in the Sheriff’s Department to intimidate an FBI agent who was investigating complaints of beatings of inmates by deputies at the LA County Jail, and to hide an FBI informant – jail inmate from his FBI handlers. Sheriff Baca was tried on that Indictment, but the jury hung.

Thereafter, on April 6, 2016, former LASD Undersheriff Paul Tanaka was convicted of conspiracy and actual obstruction of an FBI investigation; violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiring to obstruct justice) and 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (obstructing justice); for not only obstructing an FBI investigation into years of beatings and torturing of inmates at the L.A. County Jail, but also Tanaka and other high ranking Sheriff’s Department officials threatened one of the FBI agents involved in that investigation with arrest for continuing that investigation. In his trial, Tanaka admitted that he still had the Minnesota Vikings Logo tattoo on his leg; a tattoo that he described as a member in a club; the “Vikings”; a tatoo that the federal courts have held is the gang taoo for a “neo-Nazi white supremacists gang within the LA County Sheriff’s Department. See, Thomas v. County of LA, 978 F.2d 504 (1992).

Thereafter, on February 10, 2017, former LA County Sheriff Lee Baca was convicted of similar charges; lying to the FBI and obstruction of the FBI investigation into the systemic beatings and torture of inmates at the LA County Jail;  violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); lying to the FBI regarding his knowledge of a scheme in the Sheriff’s Department to intimidate an FBI agent who was investigating complaints of beatings of inmates by deputies at the LA County Jail, and to hide an FBI informant – jail inmate from his FBI handlers.

I. I Called The Police To Protect Me, So Why Was I The One Who Was Beaten-Up And Arrested?

A frequent type of case in which the police falsely arrest an innocent person, is when you, your spouse, your lover, or your parent or child, call the police. Many times family members feel that they cannot control mentally ill (or mad or drunk / drugged-up) people, including and especially their relatives, so they call “911″; often believing that the ambulance and paramedics are going to come to actually help them. They may not have even thought that the police would be the responding agency, but when they find out that the police are there, trouble may be awaiting. Once the cops are on the scene, they are taught to take charge, and anyone challenging, or even questioning, the police giving orders or their authority to do so, even seemingly unreasonable ones, is going to either get physically abused by the police, or falsely arrested by the police, or both.

Also, many spouses or lovers call the police on each other, to get the other person out of the house; even for a night or two. The police are not there to solve your family problems, so when you make that call, don’t make it unless you want your spouse or lover to go to jail, or worse. Cops are not counselors. They take people to jail. That’s what they do. So remember, when you call the police on your parent, child, lover or spouse, the person who ends-up getting thumped and arrested by the police just may be you. “No” you say? The police won’t arrest me if I’m the party calling the police. You’re wrong. They don’t care who called. All that the seem to care about, is how you respond to them; regardless of how unreasonable they act. If then, they thump you and beat you up, the odds are, that the police won’t even investigate the subject matter that you called about. Now, all of their attention is on you, since they violated you.

Also, do not use the police to get a border or a family member out of your house, unless the person is posing a “real” threat of imminent serious physical harm. If it’s that bad that you can’t stay in the house, then leave and get a hotel room, or just leave. The police cannot summarily evict / eject a civilian from a home in which they reside; whether they’re on the lease or not. In California, if a person resides at a home, only a Judge can force them to leave; either in the form of: 1) a Writ of Possession (the Court Order that the landlord gets in an “unlawful detainer” action, to give to the Sheriff’s Department, to eject you from your home, when you don’t pay your rent); 2) a Civil Harassment Restraining Order (under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6); 3) a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (under Cal. Family Code § 6320), and 4) an Emergency Protective Order in a criminal case (pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 136.2.)

II. Contempt Of Cop Cases – A Frequent Reason For False Arrests By Police Officers.

“Contempt Of Cop“ cases, are bogus criminal actions, brought against innocents by criminal prosecutors, for essentially, “bruised ego“ violations. The “ego bruising”, is really nothing more than a civilian not immediately, and without protest or question, getting-down on the ground in a proned position, or not doing something that the officer wants you to do (lawful, reasonable or not) immediately, and without question or protest. The Constable‘s “ego” is typically “bruised”, by your conduct, such as: 1) asserting your Constitutional rights, or 2) claiming knowledge of them, or 3) asking the Constable why you’re being ordered to lie down on the ground while your chest is being illuminated by the red spot of a pistol or rifle targeting device; 4) telling the Constable that you have a medical condition that makes it difficult or painful to get on the ground; 5) telling the Constable that he can’t do something (i.e. can’t go in my house without a warrant; you can’t make me go inside or come outside); 6) failing to consent to an entry or a search; and 7) not exiting your house when ordered to do so (even though the police generally can’t order you to exit a private residence; save probable cause to arrest for serious dangerous felony, coupled with an emergency; See, United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1985) and Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510 (1994.) These are but a few examples. The list is endless, but the theme is the same. Failing to immediately do whatever the police tell you to do, without protest, challenge or remarks, often will result in your being beaten-up, falsely arrested, and maliciously criminally prosecuted.

These, “Contempt Of Cop” cases, typical involve the police using force upon persons (i.e. beating them) and/or falsely arresting them, and then inventing bogus allegations of violations various “Contempt Of Cop” statutes, such as violations of: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer [commonly called “resisting arrest”]; the most abused statute in the Penal Code; 2) Cal. Penal Code § 240 /241(b) (assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence.) Cal. Penal Code § 69 is a “wobbler“; a California public offense that may be filed by the District Attorney’s Office as either a felony or a misdemeanor. In Orange County, Riverside County and LA County, allegations of violation of Penal Code § 69 are usually filed as misdemeanors. In San Bernardino County, however, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are filed as felonies much more often than her sister counties. If they shoot you, they may even charge you with Cal. Penal § Code 245(d); assault on a peace officer in a manner likely to result in great bodily injury.

III. Police Incompetence: A Frequent Reason For False Arrests By Police Officers.

Believe it or not, most experienced police officers have a pretty good functional understanding of very basic fourth amendment search and seizure issues. For example, police training about basic street contacts with civilians includes the following:

• Detentions of persons outside of the home;
• Arrests of persons outside of the home;
• The use of force on persons outside of the home;
• Probation searches
• Parole searches
• Search warrants
• Warrantless searches of persons, vehicles and homes

Once you get past the basics, most police officers really don’t understand what the Constitution forbids them from doing. Police officers simply are not sufficiently trained to properly act within with long established Constitutional constraints on them. It takes years for lawyers and judges to understand fourth amendment search and seizure issues, and they disagree often about whether certain conduct is, or is not, constitutional.

Moreover, just like the rest of us, the cops make mistakes all of the time. They are human, and, therefore, false arrests by police officers are almost very often the product of either sheer incompetence (i.e. the police arrest another for conduct that isn’t criminal), or of the police officer attempting to justify his unlawful conduct, by arresting and then framing their victim (i.e. false police reports, perjurious court testimony, false convictions) of his federal criminal (18 U.S.C. § 242), and otherwise tortious misconduct (i.e. if the police use unreasonable / unlawful force on a civilian, the use of force is almost always followed by a false arrest.)

FALSE ARREST CASES; CALIFORNIA LAW

FALSE ARREST BY PEACE OFFICER – ELEMENTS AND PROOF – CALIFORNIA LAW

A “false arrest” is the same “tort” as a “false imprisonment” under California law. Unlike federal law, under California law, the burden is on the police to justify their “seizure” (false arrest / false imprisonment) of you at a civil trial (See, California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) 1401 [False Arrest by Peace Officer Without Warrant] and 1402 [Peace Officer’s Justification / Defense To Claim Of False Arrest].) Under California law, a peace officer (i.e. police officer or deputy sheriff) may arrest another for a felony for which the officer has “probable cause” to believe person committed, or may arrest another for a misdemeanor that was committed in their presence (See, Cal. Penal Code § 836.) “Presence is not mere physical proximity but is determined by whether the offense is apparent to the officers senses. People v. Sjosten, 262 Cal.App.2d 539, 543544 (1968″.) An officer can arrest a civilian, upon probable cause, for any felony; committed in the presence of an officer or not. Cal. Penal Code § 836. However, it does not violate the fourth amendment, for an officer to arrest for a misdemeanor that was committed outside of the presence of the officer.

FALSE ARREST BY PEACE OFFICER – NO “QUASI-QUALIFIED IMMUNITY” – CALIFORNIA LAW

Cal. Penal Code 847(b) provides:

“There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise against, any peace officer . . . acting within the scope of his or her authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any arrest under any of the following circumstances:

(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.”

Although police civil defendants have argued that Section 847(b)(1) immunizes peace officers for false arrests like the “qualified immunity“ provided for police false arrest civil defendants federal court, that code section cannot be reasonably construed that way. The first part of Section 47(b)(1)(“The arrest was lawful”), logically changes nothing, for if the arrest was lawful, then there is no liability under anyone’s theory; kind an unintended legal redundancy. The second part of Section 47(b)(1) (“the peace officer, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful”), could only reasonably be meant to apply to a situation, where an officer arrested a civilian based upon either: 1) an arrest warrant that did issue, but for which there was no probable cause to have issued (the officer who obtained the arrest warrant on insufficient grounds committed the fourth amendment violation, and is liable for the false arrest, unless otherwise protected, such as by “qualified immunity“), or 2) when the officer had “reasonable cause“, which is essentially a term equivalent to “probable cause” under the jury instructions that are used at the trial of this particular tort (See, CACI 1402; . . . arrest lawful if . . . “reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff committed a crime“ is the standard for whether a peace officer’s arrest of a civilian was lawful.) Therefore, logically, Section 47(b)(1) provides no immunity for California peace officers for a false arrest. That does not mean, however, that a state or federal judge won’t disagree with that proposition. It is not fully developed under either California law, or by the federal district court’s interpretation of that statute.

FALSE ARREST BY PEACE OFFICER – FEDERAL LAW – GENERALLY

A “false arrest” under federal law, is considered a violation of a person’s right to be free from an “unreasonable seizure” of their person under the Fourth Amendment (See, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Model Civil Jury Instruction for Arrest Without Probable Cause Or Warrant.) The United States Supreme Court has defined a “seizure of a person” as when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave the presence of police officers and to go about their business. See, United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980.)

In 1871, Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), that gives any person whose federal Constitutional rights have been violated, a right to sue, any person who violated those rights under the color of state law, in a United States District Court. Section 1983 lawsuits can also be brought in a state court of general jurisdiction; See, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Accordingly, a person who is falsely arrested by a peace officer (i.e. police officer, deputy sheriff, or some other officer who derives peace officer powers from state law), may sue the police officer under Section 1983, as well as under California state law.

In federal court, in a civil Fourth Amendment “arrest without probable cause” case (a federal false arrest case), the jury is instructed at the end of the case, on the following definition of “probable cause”:

“Probable cause exists when, under all of the circumstances known to the officer[s] at the time, an objectively reasonable police officer would conclude there is a fair probability that the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime” (See, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Model Civil Jury Instruction 9.20, Arrest Without Probable Cause Or Warrant.)

Therefore, that standard, whether “an objectively reasonable police officer would conclude there is a “fair probability” that the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime”, is the standard that the propriety of an arrest, outside of the home is judged by, in federal court in the states comprising the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 9.20). It doesn’t matter what the thousands of other cases, from the Supreme Court on down, say about what “probable cause” means. All that matters, is what a civil jury is going to be told is the standard that they should judge the facts by, in their deliberations (a civil jury is the “Judge of the facts” [“trier of fact”], and the District Judge is the “Judge of the law”.)

Some justices say that the words “probable cause“, are found in the text of the fourth amendment itself, and that is the standard for a seizure of a person by the government that was established by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1791; not reasonable suspicion:

“MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

I agree that petitioner was “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I also agree that frisking petitioner and his companions for guns was a “search.” But it is a mystery how that “search” and that “seizure” can be constitutional by Fourth Amendment standards unless there was “probable cause” ^[n1] to believe that (1) a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed.

The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of “probable cause.” If loitering were in issue and that [p36] was the offense charged, there would be “probable cause” shown. But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; ^[n2] and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had “probable cause” for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of “probable cause.” We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a “seizure” and conduct a “search” than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again. ^[n3] [p37].”

In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their “seizure” without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that “probable cause” was indeed present. The term “probable cause” rings a bell of certainty that is not sounded by phrases such as “reasonable suspicion.” Moreover, the meaning of “probable cause” is deeply imbedded in our constitutional history. As we stated in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100-102:

“The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of “probable cause” before a magistrate was required.

That philosophy [rebelling against these practices] later was reflected in the Fourth Amendment. And as the early American decisions both before and immediately after its adoption show, common rumor or report, suspicion, or even “strong reason to suspect” was not adequate to support a warrant [p38] for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day. . . .

. . . It is important, we think, that this requirement [of probable cause] be strictly enforced, for the standard set by the Constitution protects both the officer and the citizen. If the officer acts with probable cause, he is protected even though it turns out that the citizen is innocent. . . . And while a search without a warrant is, within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made with probable cause. . . . This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen.

The infringement on personal liberty of any “seizure” of a person can only be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess “probable cause” before they seize him. Only that line draws a meaningful distinction between an officer’s mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer’s personal knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime.

In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. [p39] Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, ^[n4] is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Douglas,J. Dissenting.

Moreover, it does not matter what the arresting officer’s state of mind was, even if he was mistaken as to the crime committed, so long as in retrospect, a reasonably well trained officer would have believed that there was a “fair probability” that you committed a crime.

The Closely Related Offense Doctrine; A Reasonable But Now Extinct Approach To Whether Civil Liability Attaches To An Arrest.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used to employ a doctrine entitled the “Closely Related Offense Doctrine.” Under that doctrine, if an officer arrested a civilian for one particular crime, but the police officer didn’t have probable cause to have arrested the person was for that crime, if a reasonably well trained officer would have believed that probable cause existed to have arrested the person for some other crime that was “closely related” to the crime that the person was arrested for, then the arrest is valid under the “Closely Related Offense Doctrine.” Bingham v City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2003.) However, the “Closely Related Offense Doctrine” was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004.)

“Our cases make clear that an arresting officers state of mind (except for the facts that he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. . . . That is to say, his subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause. As we have repeatedly explained, the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action. . .. [T]he Fourth Amendments concern with reasonableness allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.” See, Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 15253 (2004.)

Accordingly, the arresting police officers belief about what crime a person committed is irrelevant. All that matters is whether a reasonably well trained officer would have entertained a belief that the person arrested committed a crime; that is, the “reasonably well trained officer” in the abstract. If that fictional “reasonably well trained police officer” would not have believed that a crime had been committed, the arrested person may be able to obtain compensation for his/her false arrest.

Many times an officer mistakenly believes that certain conduct is a crime, but it’s not (See, Tab above for “Police Misconduct News“, and the Section therein entitled “Possum Impossible”; the Lorenzo Oliver case; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that, as matter of law, no crime committed.) Other times, an officer arrests a person for a crime that he has no warrant or probable cause for, but, under the facts as the officer knew them, there was nonetheless a crime committed, that would have been apparent to the officer is he was familiar with that particular criminal statute. So long as a reasonably well trained officer would have believed that probable cause existed from the facts known to the arresting officer, the arrest is generally lawful. See, Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 15253 (2004.)

Atwater Legalizes Otherwise False Arrests.

If a police officer arrests you for any violation of law, even a parking ticket or a seat-belt violation, actually taking you to jail and booking you does not violate the Fourth Amendment; at least since 2001. See, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (arrest for violation of Texas seat-belt statute that carries a maximum $50.00 fine and no jail, not violative of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures”.)(See also, however, stinging Dissent by Justice O’Connor in Atwater:

“Such unbounded discretion [to arrest for even the most trivial offense] carries with it grave potential for abuse. The majority takes comfort in the lack of evidence of an epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests. Ante, at 33, and n. 25. But the relatively small number of published cases dealing with such arrests proves little and should provide little solace. Indeed, as the recent debate over racial profiling demonstrates all too clearly, a relatively minor traffic infraction may often serve as an excuse for stopping and harassing an individual. After today, the arsenal available to any officer extends to a full arrest and the searches permissible concomitant to that arrest. An officers subjective motivations for making a traffic stop are not relevant considerations in determining the reasonableness of the stop. See, Whren v. United States, supra, at 813. But it is precisely because these motivations are beyond our purview that we must vigilantly ensure that officers post stop actions which are properly within our reach comport with the Fourth Amendments guarantee of reasonableness . . . . The Court neglects the Fourth Amendments express command in the name of administrative ease. In so doing, it cloaks the pointless indignity that Gail Atwater suffered with the mantle of reasonableness. I respectfully dissent.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) O’Connor, J., Dissenting.

FALSE ARREST BY PEACE OFFICER – FEDERAL LAW – QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Under the Qualified Immunity Doctrine, so long as a reasonably well trained officer could have believed that a person’s conduct constituted a crime, the officer who actually violated the Constitutional rights of another is nonetheless immune from being liable for damages caused by the officer’s Constitutional violation:

“The qualified immunity analysis involves two separate steps. First, the court determines whether the facts show the officers conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If the alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right, then the defendants are entitled to immunity and the claim must be dismissed. However, if the alleged conduct did violate such a right, then the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful action. Id. A right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Id. at 202. If the right is not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. While the order in which these questions are addressed is left to the courts sound discretion, it is often beneficial to perform the analysis in the sequence outlined above. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 (2009). Of course, where a claim of qualified immunity is to be denied, both questions must be answered.” Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2009.)

These days, qualified immunity for false arrests are so common, that they almost make false arrest cases impossible to win.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Someone has to stand-up to the bullies of society, who think that using state police power to humiliate others, is funny, and makes them big men (or women.) There are thousands of others like you, who are good people, and have been somehow, for some reason that you could not have ever imagined, victimized by the government. It might as well be you. Stand-up for justice. Stand-up for our form of self-government. Stand-up for the spilled-blood of our fathers, who bravery died to prevent the very thing, that the government is doing to you right now.

Click on “Home”, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you need to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free telephone consultation. Also, if you have been the victim of a False Arrest or Excessive Force by a police officer, check our Section, above, entitled: “What To Do If You Have Been Beaten-Up Or False Arrested By The Police“.

Thank you, and best of luck, whatever your needs.

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering, 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660; (949) 474-1849; Fax: (949) 474-1883; email: jerrysteering@yahoo.com

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Police Misconduct Attorney, who has been suing police officers since 1984, for, among other things, false arrests and malicious prosecutions, and the use of excessive force upon civilians. His law practice involves serving, among other places, Anaheim. Mr. Steering also represents persons in both civil and criminal cases in Anaheim. He is an expert in police brutality / excessive force and false arrest cases; both civil and criminal. Mr. Steering has successfully defended bogus criminal actions (i.e. resisting arrest; battery on peace officer; over 90% of which are frame-ups) and has successfully sued Anaheim police, for many years now. Here are a few examples:

NOTABLE ANAHEIM NOTABLE POLICE MISCONDUCT CASES

Jerry L. Steering Obtains $2,900,000.00 for Anaheim Police Shooting of Motorist During Wild Wild West Vehicle Pursuit.

This was one of the craziest vehicle pursuits in modern history, with the Anaheim Police Shooting at Eliuth Nava Penaloza basically taking the police on a ride around his neighborhood. They shots 76 bullets at him, and, at the neighbors.

Oliver v. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2012; (plaintiff won case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on their unlawful arrest claim; false arrest as matter of law.) Plaintiffs obtained $400,000.00 for four hour false arrest of father (and son), for father telling police that he didn’t know of his son hit a opossum with a shovel (which isn’t a crime anyway), so the Anaheim Police Officers busted the father for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 32 (i.e. “accessory to crime”, for not  incriminating his son, for something that isn’t a crime.) See, CBS News 10/16/12; “Possum Impossible“.)   Mr. Steering has also had many acquittals in OC Superior Court; especially in cases involving false arrests.

PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Steering is also a published legal scholar, and has a published Law Review Article a logical quandary of federal evidentiary law: the disparity in the use of “accomplice accusations“ between Fourth Amendment (accomplice accusations sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause for search warrant), and Sixth Amendment analysis (accomplice accusations are so inherently unreliable, that Congress could not have meant to have included them with the ambit of the Declaration Against Penal Interest exception to the hearsay rule.) As explained in the Law Review Article, a statement is either made under circumstances that we believe indicate that they are reliable, or not. Although the tests may be somewhat different, the statement is either reliable or not, and treating the statement as unreliable for Sixth Amendment purposes, but as reliable for Fourth Amendment purposes, is simply illogical. See, “The Application Of Sixth Amendment Tests For The Reliability Of Hearsay Evidence To Probable Cause Determinations”, 16 Rutgers Law Journal 869 (1985.)

Mr. Steering has been suing police officers, and defending bogus criminal cases of crimes against police officers, since 1984. The majority ofthe Steering lawfirm’s practice, is suing police officers and other government officials, for misconduct, such as false arrest, police brutality / excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other “Constitutional Torts.”   Unfortunately, because of institutional pressures (i.e. “ratting out fellow officer not good career move), and the obvious political and practical consequences of not backing-up the their fellow officers, the norm in todays police profession, is for peace officers to falsely arrest, and procure the bogus criminal prosecution (i.e. to literally “frame”) of those civilians, whose Constitutional rights and basic human dignity have been violated.

If you have been the victim of Excessive Force or a False Arrest by a police officer, please check our Section, above, entitled: “What To Do If You Have Been Beaten-Up Or False Arrested By The Police“. Also, please click on “Home“, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you nhttps://steeringlaw.com/what-to-do-if-you-have-been-beaten-up-or-falsely-arrested-by-the-police/eed to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free consultation. Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Civil Rights – Police Misconduct Attorney, serving, among other places, OC, and the OC cities shown below,  Mr. Steering has been suing police officers for civil rights violations, and defending bogus criminal cases of crimes against police officers, for almost 29 years. The majority of the Steering law firm’s practice, is suing police officers and other government officials, for misconduct, such as false arrest, police brutality / excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other “Constitutional Torts“.   Click on “Home“, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you need to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free telephone consultation.

Thank you, and best of luck, whatever your needs.

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering

Save

Save

Save

Save

CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE RISE OF THE POLICE STATE:

AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,

WE LIVE IN A QUASI-POLICE STATE.

If you think, as a practical matter, that you live in a “free country”, you’re wrong. We don’t. We live in a quasi-police state; at least to a very appreciable degree; too appreciable. The National Security Agency spies on all Americans. They record all of our phone calls (cell or landline), our faxes, our emails, every key stroke of any online activities, and so much more. When these facts became public in the Spring of 2013, many people grumbled, but the grumbling only lasted for a few weeks. The unconstitutionality, and criminality of these actions of our “Big Brother“ (the National Security Agency) at least the last few Presidential administrations is apparent. These “interceptions” constitute a search, that, pass muster under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, must be obtained pursuant to a search warrant; supported by probable cause. That means that the government must already have sufficient evidence that you are engaged in criminal activity before they get their permission to intercept your communications. Under the guise of making us safe, the government has, and is, trampling the very pillars of liberty that millions have been wounded and have died to protect. In this respect, the terrorists have already won. They have made us more like them. They have caused us to abandon those principles of a free society, and has turned us into a police state. Do you feel safer knowing that there are secret courts, with secret judges, secret proceedings, that no one can check, examine or challenge?

The Police State; The Police Use The Courts To Trample Your Liberty, Because They Can.

We also are now in a “police state”, because, as a practical matter, the police can do just about whatever they want to you, and then procure the institution of a bogus criminal case against you, to protect themselves.  They typically author bogus police reports that claim that you committed some crime, like resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer and/or battery on a peace officer, that result in a bogus criminal prosecution against you. Most of the time, they twist things around (i.e. the suspect struck my fist with his jaw.) There are a base collection of police report buzz words, that cops use to tickle the ambitious fantasies of young Deputy District Attorneys, who want to make a mark for themselves in the District Attorney’s Office, by persecuting the innocent, the actual victim, to protect the government from civil liability and obloquy. Some of these key terms are: 1) the suspect took an aggressive stance (or a fighting stance); 2) believing the suspect was going to strike me, I applied a departmental approved control hold, which the suspect, with his great strength, pulled out of; 3) I shot the suspect several times with my department issued taser, but it had no effect on the him; 4) I sprayed the suspect several times with my department issued pepper-spray, but it had no effect on the him; 5) I assisted the suspect to the ground by gently pushing the back of his knee with mine; 6) I tried to grab the suspect, but he pulled away from my grasp, and we both ended-up going to the ground, with me somehow landing on top of him; 7) I pointed my pistol directly at the suspect’s head and ordered him to show me his hands, but he refused to do so, and kept his hands in his waistband area, so I shot him (for LASD, 100%; (15) unarmed people were killed by LASD in 2010 with the waistband excuse); 8) I asked the suspect his name, and he said “fuck you motherfucker”; 9) the suspect continued to fight us (while we were both on-top of his back, holding both of his arms, with the suspect face down; some “fight”.) They go on and on.

The police know that the District Attorney’s Office takes great pride in protecting the police from civil liability,by filing and prosecuting criminal action. They do this to beat you down; to make it so expensive for you to defend yourself on bogus criminal charges, such as resisting arrest, that you take a plea bargain, and, in effect, bar a lawsuit by you for either false arrest, malicious prosecution, and, in most such cases, unreasonable force. They also do this to protect themselves from internal discipline and criminal liability for civil rights violations (18 U.S.C.§ 242.) The employing police agency will (almost) always deny that their officer engaged in wrongful conduct, especially in swearing contest type cases, where there is no video recording of the police beatings. Because the employing police agency will (almost) always back their officers by touting their (false) version of the story in order to avoid civil liability to the employing entity for the actions of their officers, it’s almost impossible to discipline them. For example, the City of Inglewood, California, fired Inglewood Police Department officer Jeremy Morse, for the video recording beating of a teenager at a gas station. When it came time for the civil suit against the City and the officers for the beating, the City contended that the officers acted properly. Accordingly, since the City took that position, fired officer Jeremy Morse sued the city, and won $1,600,000.00 for his wrongful firing.

In 2010 the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department shot to death 15 people, who they claimed were reaching for their waistband; notwithstanding that none of the shooting victims were armed. No one was prosecuted or disciplined. Who needs a hunting license? Join the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and you can shoot who ever you want to (unless the shooting is video recorded. If it is, the politicians may have to get rid of the officer.) Recently (forced to retire) LASD Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, was a member of the Vikings; a White supremacist Neo-Nazi organization within the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. See, Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1992.)

That’s not the end of it. Former LASD Deputy Sheriff Noel Womack pleaded guilty in June of 2015 to federal charges of lying to the FBI about systemic LASD torturing and framing of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jails. In 2014, six LASD Deputy Sheriffs were convicted of obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the torturing of prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jails.

Former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, along with a retired LASD Captain, were indicted on May 13, 2015 by a federal Grand Jury for Obstructing and Conspiring to Obstruct a federal Grand Jury investigation of the rampant torturing of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail (See, Paul Tanaka Indictment of May 13, 2015.) That’s not the end of it. Former LASD Deputy Sheriff Noel Womack pleaded guilty in June of 2015 to federal charges of lying to the FBI about systemic LASD torturing and framing of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jails. In 2014, six LASD Deputy Sheriffs were convicted of obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the torturing of prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jails.

Lee Baca resigned from office over the scandal at the LA County Men’s Central Jail involving the Indictment of 18 LASD Deputy Sheriffs and their Supervisors for torturing prisoners and obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the same. On February 10, 2016, Sheriff Baca was Indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); lying to the FBI regarding his knowledge of a scheme in the Sheriff’s Department to intimidate an FBI agent who was investigating complaints of beatings of inmates by deputies at the Los Angeles County Jail, and to hide an FBI informant – jail inmate from his FBI handlers. Sheriff Baca was tried on that Indictment, but the jury hung.

Thereafter, on April 6, 2016, former LASD Undersheriff Paul Tanaka was convicted of conspiracy and actual obstruction of an FBI investigation; violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiring to obstruct justice) and 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (obstructing justice); for not only obstructing an FBI investigation into years of beatings and torturing of inmates at the L.A. County Jail, but also Tanaka and other high ranking Sheriff’s Department officials threatened one of the FBI agents involved in that investigation with arrest for continuing that investigation. In his trial, Tanaka admitted that he still had the Minnesota Vikings Logo tattoo on his leg; a tattoo that he described as a member in a club; the “Vikings”; a tatoo that the federal courts have held is the gang taoo for a “neo-Nazi white supremacists gang within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. See, Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504 (1992).

Thereafter, on February 10, 2017, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca was convicted of similar charges; lying to the FBI and obstruction of the FBI investigation into the systemic beatings and torture of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail;  violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); lying to the FBI regarding his knowledge of a scheme in the Sheriff’s Department to intimidate an FBI agent who was investigating complaints of beatings of inmates by deputies at the Los Angeles County Jail, and to hide an FBI informant – jail inmate from his FBI handlers.

It should be noted that this article is not a condemnation of District Attorneys who don’t bring criminal charges against peace officers who commit homicides in the course of their official police duties. The author understands that it is extremely difficult to criminally convict California peace officers for duty related actions, such as shooting another, and that those District Attorney’s may not feel that a criminal prosecution would actually be successful; notwithstanding any personal belief of the criminality of those actions by the District Attorneys of California.

THE RISE OF THE POLICE STATE; CONTEMPT OF COP CASES – “OBSTRUCTION CRIME ARRESTS”.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the right to be left alone by the government, is the abuse of certain criminal statutes to stifle verbal challenge or protest of police actions and statements. In the real world, if you “fail the attitude test“, you’re just committed “Contempt of Cop“; a phrase that unfortunately represents the trigger for most arrests of innocents for certain crimes against peace officers. “Contempt Of Cop“ cases, are bogus criminal actions, brought against innocents by criminal prosecutors, for essentially, “bruised ego“ violations. The “ego bruising”, is really nothing more than a civilian not immediately, and without protest or question, getting-down on the ground in a proned position, or not doing something that the officer wants you to do (lawful, reasonable or not) immediately, and without question or protest. The Constable‘s “ego” is typically “bruised”, by your conduct, such as: 1) asserting your Constitutional rights, or 2) claiming knowledge of them, or 3) asking the Constable why you’re being ordered to lie down on the ground while your chest is being illuminated by the red spot of a pistol or rifle targeting device; 4) telling the Constable that you have a medical condition that makes it difficult or painful to get on the ground; 5) telling the Constable that he can’t do something (i.e. can’t go in my house without a warrant; you can’t make me go inside or come outside); 6) failing to consent to an entry or a search; and 7) not exiting your house when ordered to do so (even though the police generally can’t order you to exit a private residence; save probable cause to arrest for serious dangerous felony, coupled with an emergency; See, United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1985) and Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510 (1994.)) These are but a few examples. The list is endless, but the theme is the same. Failing to immediately do whatever the police tell you to do, without protest, disapproval, challenge or remarks, often will result in your being beaten-up, falsely arrested, and maliciously criminally prosecuted.

These, “Contempt Of Cop“ cases also typically involve the police using force upon persons (i.e. beating them) and/or falsely arresting them, and then inventing bogus allegations of violations various “Contempt Of Cop“ statutes, such as violations of: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer [commonly called “resisting arrest”]; the most abused statute in the Penal Code; 2) Cal. Penal Code  § 240/241(b) (assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code § 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence.) Cal. Penal Code § 69 is a “wobbler”; a California public offense that may be filed by the District Attorney’s Office as either a felony or a misdemeanor. In Orange County, Riverside County and Los Angeles County, allegations of violation of Penal Code § 69 are usually filed as misdemeanors. In San Bernardino County, however, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are filed as felonies much more often than her sister counties. If they shoot you, they may even charge you with Cal. Penal § Code 245(d); assault on a peace officer in a manner likely to result in great bodily injury.

Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer) is the most abused statute in the Penal Code, because of it’s inherent ambiguity. It is so vague, that almost any interaction, or failure to interact, with the police,can be “tailored” to apply to non-criminal conduct. What exactly does it mean to “resist” or to “obstruct” or to “delay” a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duties? No one knows. There is no meaning. It means everything, and it means nothing.

Mr. Steering is an expert in “Contempt Of Cop” type cases, and has litigated, consulted, advised or has otherwise been involved in thousands of these type of bogus criminal cases; usually for fabricated charges of either: 1) resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer in the lawful performance of his duties, 2) assault and battery on a peace officer, 3) using / threatening use of force or violence to deter or prevent a public officer from performing their duty, 4) assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, or, 5) attempted murder of a peace officer.

Unfortunately, the natural American reaction to hearing that you are accused of a crime, is to presume that you actually committed some crime, or otherwise acted unlawfully, anti-socially dishonorably or despicably. These, “Contempt Of Cop“ cases, typical involve the police using force upon persons (i.e. beating them) and/or falsely arresting them, and then inventing bogus allegations of violations various “Contempt Of Cop” statutes, such as violations of: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer; the most abused statute in the Penal Code; 2) Cal. Penal Code § 240/241(b) (assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code § 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence.) Cal. Penal Code § 69 is a “wobbler”; a California public offense that may be filed by the District Attorney’s Office as either a felony or a misdemeanor. In Orange County, Riverside County and Los Angeles County, allegations of violation of Penal Code § 69 are usually filed as misdemeanors. In San Bernardino County, however, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are filed as felonies much more often than her sister counties.

THE RISE OF THE POLICE STATE; THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE “EXCLUSIONARY RULE.”

THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THE VERY TOOL FASHIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT, TO PREVENT POLICE MISCONDUCT; THE REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

WHAT IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

The “Exclusionary Rule” prevents the government from using most evidence in criminal cases that was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution. It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439 (1966), and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated defendants Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, See, Miranda. The rule does not apply to civil cases, including deportation hearings. See, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984.)

If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of fruit of the poisonous tree.

The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. See, Arizona v. Evans, 541 U.S. 1 (1995.)

WHY DID THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DISMANTLE MANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS?

People who believe the Courts are a bunch of judges who let the criminals go free for the slightest technicality, have no concept of reality. In fact, most people don’t have a clue as to what Constitutional rights they have, or, in many situations, what Constitutional rights they used to have. For example, most people believe that when the police arrest you, that they are somehow obligated to read you your Miranda warnings. They aren’t, and they usually don’t.; especially when the witnessed or participated in the event that they are calling a crime. All that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) stands for, is the proposition that after you’re in police custody (i.e. arrested), that any statement that you make to the police in response to custodial police interrogation, cannot be introduced into evidence against you at your criminal trial, unless you were first advised of your right to counsel (under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and your right against self-incrimination (under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.) However, if you take the witness stand and testify at your criminal trial, statements made by you that were obtained in violation of Miranda can then be introduced against you, because the exclusionary rule is not a license to lie

In Federal and in California criminal cases (and, in reality, every other appellate court in the United States), the Appellate Courts very often distort and pervert the contours the protections provided to us in the United States Constitution, by simply stating that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit a particular form of government conduct. They do this so they don’t have to exclude evidence in a criminal trial; evidence that will often prove the defendant’s guilt, and without which, the government had no case. This, unfortunately, is the unintended consequence of the exclusionary rule; the rule created by the United States Supreme Court, to curb unlawful police conduct that results in the police illegally obtaining evidence, in Weeks v. United States 245 U.S. 618 (1918) (exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in federal court criminal trials) and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in state court criminal trials.)

When Judges are faced with a choice of either excluding incriminating evidence at criminal trial because it was obtained in violation of the Federal Constitution, or simply re-characterizing and deliberately misinterpreting what the contours of those protections are, many many times, the Courts will choose perverting our Constitutional protections. In other words, Appellate Court Judges often “change” (by judicial fiat)the protections of the Constitutional provision at issue, to let the evidence in. Although this may be just wonderful for convicting the guilty, the consequences of reducing the protections afforded to all persons under a particular Constitutional provision undermines the liberty interests of the rest of us innocent people:

“By the Bill of Rights the founders of this country subordinated police action to legal restraints, not in order to convenience the guilty but to protect the innocent. Nor did they provide that only the innocent may appeal to these safeguards. They knew too well that the successful prosecution of the guilty does not require jeopardy to the innocent. The knock at the door under the guise of a warrant of arrest for a venial or spurious offense was not unknown to them. Compare the statement in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 390, 34 S.Ct. 341, 343, that searches and seizures had been made under general warrants in England ‘in support of charges, real or imaginary.’ We have had grim reminders in our day of their experience. Arrest under a warrant for a minor or a trumped-up charge has been familiar practice in the past, is a commonplace in the police state of today, and too well-known in this country. See Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888.

The progress is too easy from police action unscrutinized by judicial authorization to the police state. The founders wrote into the Constitution their conviction that law enforcement does not require the easy but dangerous way of letting the police determine when search is called for without prior authorization by a magistrate. They have been vindicated in that conviction. It may safely be asserted that crime is most effectively brought to book when the principles underlying the constitutional restraints upon police action are most scrupulously observed.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950);Frankfurter, J.

YOUR REMEDIES FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION BY POLICE OFFICERS.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 42 U.S.C.  § 1983.

The federal statute that persons in the United States use every day to sue police officers and other persons acting under the color of     law, is “The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871″; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 Actions”, Are The Premier And Most Commonly Use Remedy, To Obtain Redress for Constitutional Violations, By Persons Acting Under The Color Of State Law.

In the years after the Civil War, the South began to see the emergence of white terrorist groups. These organizations of composed mostly of veterans still aspring to the goals of the Confederacy and their own Southern heritage, brought terror to freed blacks who looked to participate in the community as well as to their white allies. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was Congress’ attempt to put an end to the policies of terrorism, intimidation, and violence that the Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, and the Jayhawkers had been using. The law unfortunately failed to eradicate the Klan or abolish the continued use of fear tactics and brutality against blacks and supportive whites.

Founded as a fraternal organization by Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan soon became a paramilitary group devoted to the overthrow of Republican governments in the South and the reassertion of white supremacy. Through murder, kidnapping, and violent intimidation, Klansmen sought to secure Democratic victories in elections by attacking black voters and, less frequently, white Republican leaders.

In response to Klan violence, Congress passed the first of three Enforcement Acts on May 31, 1870, to ensure that the provisions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were followed. The act, which made it a federal offensive to try to deprive anyone of his civil rights, had little effect on the deteriorating situation. A second Enforcement Act, passed on February 28, 1871, established federal supervision over elections, but also did little to remedy the situation. After the failure in the House of a more powerful bill that would have given the federal government additional power to enforce election law, President Grant decided to intervene. The President met with Congressional leaders to urge the passage of stronger legislation, and on their recommendation, Grant issued a direct appeal to Congress requesting a new law. Grant’s appeal was successful, and Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act.

On April 20, 1871, Congress Passed The Ku Klux Klan Act; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Also known as the third Enforcement Act. the bill was a controversial expansion of federal authority, designed to give the federal government additional power to protect voters. The act established penalties in the form of fines and jail time for attempts to deprive citizens of equal protection under the laws and gave the President the authority to use federal troops and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in ensuring that civil rights were upheld.

President Grant put the new legislation to work after several Klan incidents in May.

He sent additional troops to the South and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina. Aided by Attorney General Amos T. Akermen and the newly created Department of Justice, extensive work was done to prosecute the Klan. While relatively few convictions were obtained, the new legislation helped to suppress Klan activities and ensure a greater degree of fairness in the election of 1872.

In 1871, Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), that gives any person whose federal Constitutional rights have been violated, a right to sue, any person who violated those rights under the color of state law, in a United States District Court. Section 1983 lawsuits can also be brought in a state court of general jurisdiction; See, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, a person who is falsely arrested by a peace officer (i.e. police officer, deputy sheriff, or some other officer who derives peace officer powers from state law), may sue the police officer under Section 1983, as well as under California state law. Similarly, one who is subjected to unreasonable force, a malicious criminal prosecution, or other Constitution violation, may sue in a federal or state court for redress under Section 1983.

Commonly referred to as “Section 1983″ cases or actions, this federal statute was enacted by Congress in response to a letter from President Ulysses S. Grant; complaining of the conditions in the Southern states, and asking Congress to create a remedy for persons of African descent (i.e. former slaves), for violation of their federal Constitutional rights, by persons acting under the color of state law; the Sheriff and his posse. That’s what the KKK did. The local Sheriff and his posse, deputized and KKK members, would murder former slaves, but their widows and children had no actual remedy in Southern state courts; no remedy that either a Court would allow to proceed, or if so allowed, that a Southern white Post Civil War jury, would award compensation for. Accordingly, President Grant wanted persons of African descent to have a remedy in federal court, for such atrocities. Similar criminal statutes were enacted by Congress for the same Constitutional violations, in 18 U.S.C. § 241 in 1966 (conspiracy to violate Constitutional rights), and 18 U.S.C. § 242 in 1870 (violation of federal Constitutional rights under color of law.

That statute is the vehicle that is used today to sue police officers and other governmental officials. It’s literally the most used law in the United States to sue police officers for violating the federal Constitutional rights of another.

If you have been the victim of Excessive Force or a False Arrest by a police officer, please check our Section, above, entitled: “What To Do If You Have Been Beaten-Up Or False Arrested By The Police“. Also, please click on “Home“, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you need to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free consultation.

Jerry L. Steering, Esq., is a Civil Rights – Police Misconduct Attorney, serving, among other places, Orange County, and the Orange County cities shown below, including in the City of Newport Beach, California. Mr. Steering has been in the Newport Beach area since 1986, and has been suing police officers for civil rights violations, and defending bogus criminal cases of crimes against police officers, for almost 29 years. The majority of the Steering law firm’s practice, is suing police officers and other government officials, for misconduct, such as false arrest, police brutality / excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other “Constitutional Torts“.

Click on “Home“, above, or the other pages shown, for the information or assistance that we can provide for you. If you need to speak with a lawyer about your particular legal situation, please call the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering for a free telephone consultation.

Thank you, and best of luck, whatever your needs.

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Here is a sampling of some of the police brutality, false arrest and malicious prosecution cases handled by Mr. Steering:

• Markwell v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court, $40,000.00 settlement for excessive force (1987);

• Goodwin v. City of Stanton, U.S. District Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (1988), $100,000.00 settlement for false arrest;

• Hands v. City of Laguna Beach, Orange County, California, Superior Court (1989), $137,500.00 settlement, for false arrest and excessive force;

• Voss v. City of Laguna Beach, Orange County Superior Court (1989), $35,000.00 award for false arrest;

• Farahani v. City of Santa Ana, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana) (1990), $612,000.00 jury verdict for excessive force, for baton strike to head;

• Kieswetter v. City of Laguna Beach, Orange County Superior Court (1991), $75,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force;

• Guillen v. City of Santa Ana, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (1992)(L.A.), $75,000.00 settlement following acquittal of criminal charges of resisting and assaulting peace officer;

• In Re Richard P., U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(1992), $450,000.00 settlement for false arrest, malicious prosecution and excessive force, following jury verdict of acquittal in state court criminal action for resisting peace officer and assault and battery on peace officer;

• Lobsinger v. City of Stanton, Orange County Superior Court (1993), $50,000.00 arbitration award for excessive force;

• Burks v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court (1993), $30,000.00 settlement for false arrest;

• Garcia v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, Superior Court (1994), $140,000.00 settlement following plaintiff’s jury verdict for 8 minute false arrest;

• Garcia v. City of Santa Ana, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(1994), $25,000.00 settlement for false arrest;

• Bautista v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. Dist. Court, Central District of Cal. (Santa Ana) (1994), $42,500.00 settlement for unlawful detention during warrant execution;

• Tualaulelei v. City of Compton, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (L.A.) (1995), $6,000,000.00 structured settlement for wrongful death police shooting in Compton, California;

• Morgan v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Riverside), (1996), $714,000.00 settlement following jury verdict for excessive force and false arrest during search warrant execution in Victorville, California;

• August v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Orange County, California, Superior Court (1997),$80,000.00 settlement with bail agents for unlawful entry into home and unlawful detention;

• Gallard v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (L.A.) (1998), $82,000.00 settlement for wrongful eviction by LAPD officers;

• Oschmann v. County of Orange, et al., U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(1998), $30,000.00 settlement for unlawful seizure of person;

• Lopez v. County of Orange, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(1999), $50,000.00 settlement for false arrest and excessive force;

• Ansari v. City of Laguna Beach, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(1999), $30,000.00 settlement for unlawful gunpoint detention;

• Darr v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Riverside)(2000), $50,000.00 settlement for violation of first amendment right to freedom of association;

• Sharp v. City of Garden Grove, Orange County, California, Superior Court, (2000), $1,010,000.00 jury verdict, 45 minute detention of father of parolee;

• Corugedo v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (L.A.)(2000), $100,000.00 settlement for unlawful entry into home and seizure of minor;

• Gardner v. AMR, U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. of Cal. (L.A.) (2001), $650,000.00 settlement of wrongful death, for failure to provide ambulance;

• Austin v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, $500,000.00 jury verdict for false arrest and excessive force;

• Keaty v. City of Huntington Beach, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (L.A.) (2002), $70,000.00 settlement for harassment by police officer);

• Lopez v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Riverside) (2002), $50,000.00 settlement for racially motivated battery;

• Morales v. City of Bell Gardens, U.S. District Court Cent. Dist. Cal. (L.A.)(2003), $120,000.00 settlement for excessive force and false arrest;

• Miller v. City of San Bernardino, et al., U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. (Riverside) (2003), $35,000.00 settlement for unlawful detention;

• Calderon v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. Dist. Court, Central Dist. of Cal. (Riverside)(2003), $115,000.00 settlement for false arrest and illegal search;

• Johnson v. County of Orange, U.S. Dist. Court (Santa Ana) (2003), $95,000.00 settlement for false arrest;

• Baima v. County of Orange, U.S. Dist. Court, Central Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(2004), $208,000.00 settlement for false arrest and excessive force;

• Alvarez v. City of L.A., U.S. Dist. Court Central District of California (2004), $850,000.00 settlement for false arrest, malicious prosecution and withholding exculpatory evidence;

• Arroyo v. City of San Bernardino, U.S. Dist. Court, Central Dist. of Cal. (Riverside)(2004), $125,000.00 settlement for unreasonable seizure of person;

• Jane Doe v. City of Irvine, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of Cal. (Santa Ana)(2005), $400,000.00 settlement for sexual battery by police officer;

• Mansfield v. City of Costa Mesa, U.S. Dist. Court, Central Dist. of Cal. (Santa Ana)(2006), $225,000.00 settlement for unreasonable shooting of family pit bull and for unlawful seizure of person;

• King v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., U.S. District Court Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2006), $38,500.00 settlement for wrongful shooting of pit bull;

• Risk v. Cathedral City, U.S. District Court Central District of Cal. (Riverside)(2006), $125,000.00 settlement for false arrest / excessive force;

• Howden v. City of Anaheim, et al, U.S. District Court Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2007), $90,000.00 settlement for false arrest and false personnel claim against police officer;

• In re Jamie J., U.S. District Court Central District of Cal. (Riverside)(2007), $75,000.00 settlement for false arrest / excessive force;

• Ford v. County of San Bernardino, (2007), $80,000.00 settlement for excessive force;

• In re Jane Doe v. County of San Bernardino, et al., (2008), $290,000.00 settlement (prior to filing lawsuit) for sexually motivated mistreatment of arrestee;

• Chamberlain v. County of Orange, et al. (2008), $600,000.00 settlement for wrongful death / interference with parent – child relationship / failure to protect inmate in County Jail facility;

• Rexford Newman v. County of Orange, U.S. District Court – Santa Ana (2008), $49,999.00 for unreasonable force and false arrest;

• Munoz v. County of Orange, et al., U.S. District Court Central District of California (Santa Ana) (2008), $40,000.00 settlement (following plaintiff’s jury verdict) for battery of inmate at Orange County Jail;

• Garcia v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court – Riverside (2008), $95,000.00 settlement for failure to protect inmate at Glen Helen Jail;

• Diaz v. County of San Bernardino, et al. , United States District Court – Riverside (2008), $49,999.00 settlement for excessive force;

• Vera v. County of Riverside, et al., United States District Court – Riverside (2009) $199,000.00 settlement (part structured) for unreasonable force / infliction of emotional distress;

• Grasso v. County of San Bernardino, et al. (2009), $180,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force / infliction of emotional distress;

• Santos v. City of Garden Grove, et al., United States District Court, Central District of Cal. (Santa Ana) (2009), $475,000.00 settlement for false arrest, malicious prosecution and unreasonable force;

• Turner v. County of Orange, U.S. Dist. Court, Central District of Cal. (Santa Ana)(2009), $200,000.00 settlement for false arrest and unreasonable force;

• Torres v. County of Riverside, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Riverside)(2010), $500,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force;

• Cortez v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court (2010), $300,000.00 settlement for placing private citizen bystander in position of danger, and negligent infliction of emotional distress;

• Torrance v. County of Orange et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana)(2010), $380,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force and false arrest;

• Gomez v. County of Orange, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles) (2011), $2,163,799.53, settlement (part structure) for unreasonable force [wrongful death] of convicted jail inmate;

• Chynoweth v. County of Riverside et al.,Riverside County Superior Court (2011), $750,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force;

• Moore, et al. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County Superior Court (2012), $825,000.00 (trial settlement) for excessive force and false arrest;

• Aubry v. County of San Bernardino, et al, U.S. Dist. Court (LA) 2012, $325,000.00 settlement for the use of unreasonable force and for false arrest;

• Lorenzo Oliver v. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court (Santa Ana) 2012; $400,000.00 settlement following win on liability in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (See Police Misconduct News; or click above on “Police Misconduct News”) for false arrest (“Possum Impossible”; CBS News; Neil Chayet “Looking at the Law”);

• Parnell v. County of Riverside, U.S. District Court (L.A.) 2013; $250,000.00 at trial for unreasonable force and unlawful search; and

• Trent v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2013; $600,000.00 settlement for unreasonable force and unlawful seizure of person;

• Butano v. County of Orange; U.S. District Court (L.A.) 2014; $727,500.00 final settlement for false arrest and unreasonable force;

• Holley v. County of Riverside, U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2014; $500,000.00 settlement for false arrest and unreasonable force;

• Fox v. County of Orange; U.S. District Court (Santa Ana) 2015;$150,000.00 settlement for false arrest and unreasonable force;

• In Re R.W.; U.S. District Court (Santa Ana) 2015; $465,000.00 settlement for failure to provide medical treatment;

• Slater v. County of Riverside; U.S. District Court (L.A.); $40,000.00 for unreasonable force on jail inmate;

• Montano v. USA; U.S. District Court (L.A.) 2015; $500,000.00 for wrongful death of dialysis patient;

• Thomas v. City of Gardena; U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2015; $292,495.00 jury verdict plus attorney’s fees and costs for false arrest;

• Licitra v. County of Riverside, U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2016; $300,000.00 settlement for false arrest / unreasonable force;

• In re Emmanuel W.; U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2016; $200,000.00 settlement for false arrest / unreasonable force;

• Jones v. County of Riverside, U.S. District Court (Riverside) 2016; $300,000.00 settlement for unreasonable seizure of person;

• Jimenez v. County of San Diego, U.S. District Court (San Diego) 2016; $500,000.00  settlement for excessive force;

• Jones v. County of San Bernardino, U.S. District Court (Los Angeles) 2017; $170,000.00 settlement for unreasonable seizure of person;

• In J.M.J.; U.S. District Court, U.S. District Court (Los Angeles) 2017; $225,000.00 settlement for first amendment retaliation;

• In Re A.E.; U.S. District Court, U.S. District Court (Los Angeles) 2017; $75,000.00 settlement for false arrest.

Jerry L. Steering is an expert in and has prosecuted, defended, consulted or has otherwise been involved in hundreds of cases, and righteous civil rights civil actions. He has sued states, municipal entities (i.e. cities and counties) and even the United States government.

We now live in a time of great importance; a time where we are going to be called upon to decide what type of government we want; these days, whether or not we shift from a free society into a “police state”. These “Contempt Of Cop“ cases are those on the front lines of that never ending battle between the oppressed (the beaten / violated ones; the victims of bruised frail police egos), and their oppressors (the police.) Never before in the history of the Republic, has our commitment, to the sovereignty of, and respect for, the rights of the individual, been so much in ignored, and some much in doubt. With each passing case, bit by bit, bite by bite, by the “Opinions” of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals, and the state appellate courts, we see our basic right to be left alone, and our right not to be exposed to unreasonable searches and seizures, either vanish completely or yield to claims by police officers that the constitutional balance of their safety versus your constitutional rights by tipped in their favor.

Unfortunately, the natural American’s reaction to hearing that you are accused of a crime, is to presume that you actually committed some crime, or otherwise acted unlawfully, anti-socially, dishonorably or despicably. That you are the bad guy. That you crossed some known barrier, that separates good, moral and reasonable conduct, and acted contrary to the social contract; that you acted unreasonably and immorally. That is the stigma that you now bear. No matter what you do, no matter what happens to your cause, the fact of your arrest by the police, places you in a different category in the minds of all of us; to one degree or another. You may win millions of dollars for what the government has done to you, but you will, in perpetuity, have an arrest record, notwithstanding any lack of criminal or even unreasonable conduct by you.

Don’t get too exited about an expungement of you misdemeanor conviction pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 (California expungement of misdemeanor conviction statute.)

Notwithstanding anything that you are told by your cousin or pals, or even a judge or lawyer, nothing in the language of Section 1203.4 actually states that you may withhold the fact of your now expunged conviction, from another. So, for example, if you get your misdemeanor conviction expunged pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 , you still have to divulge the conviction when applying for employment with a government agency, or for any sort of government licensure. Moreover, these convictions now live in private databases that one can find online within seconds (just Google criminal background checks, and see how many avenues of obtaining that information exist; instantly.)  Also, if you sue for false arrest or for unreasonable force, when you fill-out that job application, and question 6 asks for your arrests (to which, pursuant to Section 1203.4 you answer “No”), how are you going to answer question number 7; have you ever been a party to a lawsuit. If “Yes”, please explain? Are you going to say in question 6 that you’ve never been arrested, and then in question 7, state that you sued another for false arrest?

Vindication is our goal, for our unfortunate criminal defendant / civil plaintiff clients, who are truly innocent, and who are accused of a “crime against justice.” There are a lot more innocents of “Contempt Of Cop” crimes, than just about any other type of crime. That’s because the victim is the one being gooned, arrested and prosecuted. These “Contempt Of Cop” cases, both civil and criminal, are the majority of Mr. Steering’s law practice. Here are a few tips for such innocents being wrongfully criminally prosecuted.

“Contempt Of Cop“ cases, are bogus criminal actions, brought against innocents by criminal prosecutors, for essentially, “bruised ego” violations. The “ego bruising”, is really nothing more than a civilian not immediately, and without protest or question, getting-down on the ground in a prone position, or not doing something that the officer wants you to do (lawful, reasonable or not) immediately, and without question or protest. The Constable’s “ego” is typically “bruised”, by your conduct, such as: 1) asserting your Constitutional rights , or 2) claiming knowledge of them, or 3) asking the Constable why you’re being ordered to lie down on the ground while your chest is being illuminated by the red spot of a pistol or rifle targeting device; 4) telling the Constable that you have a medical condition that makes it difficult or painful to get on the ground; 5) telling the Constable that he can’t do something (i.e. can’t go in my house without a warrant); 6) failing to consent to an entry or a search; 7) not exiting your house when ordered to do so (even though the police generally can’t order you to exit; U.S. v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890 (1985), and 8) video / audio recording the police [something lawful].) These are but a few examples. The list is endless, but the theme is the same.

Failing to immediately do whatever the police tell you to do, without protest, challenge or remarks, often will result in you being beaten-up, falsely arrested, and maliciously criminally prosecuted; and, in places with “conservative jurors”, convicted for resisting arrest and battery on a peace officer. This is no joke. The overwhelming majority of “Contempt of Cop” criminal prosecutions are  simply bogus. The police usually accused persons of fairly innocuous, but nonetheless, criminal conduct. Criminal, again, in the sense of a failure to immediately, and without question, do whatever the police tell you to do. That is a police state, if the police can brutalize and falsely arrest you, and you plead to time served and community service, just because the contrived charges have resulted in unobtainable bails; bail amounts that keep you in jail.

These,“Contempt Of Cop“cases, typically involve the police using force upon persons (i.e. beating them) and/or falsely arresting them, and then inventing bogus and “creative” allegations of violations various “Contempt Of Cop” statutes, such as violations of: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer; the most abused statute in the Penal Code); 2) Cal. Penal Code § 240/241(c)(assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code§ 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code § 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence.) Cal. Penal Code § 69 is a “wobbler”; a California public offense that may be filed by the District Attorney’s Office as either a felony or a misdemeanor. In Orange County, Riverside County and Los Angeles County, allegations of violation of  Cal. Penal Code § 69  are usually filed as misdemeanors. In San Bernardino County, however, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are filed as felonies much more often than her sister counties.

As shown below the ambiguity of California’s “Contempt of Cop” statute, Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1), “allows” the police to claim to that you committed a crime for behavior that is constitutionally protected, such as verbally protesting police action (i.e. “officer, stop hitting that handcuffed man in his head”), questioning police assertions of authority (i.e. “Do you have a search warrant to have entered and searched my house“) and failing to immediately comply with orders from a police officer (i.e. “Officer; why are you pointing that gun a my face and want me to lie down on the dirty ground”.) It’s also the general default charge that the police use when you didn’t commit a crime, because the boys and girls back at the at the station in the report writing room, will come-up with some sort fabrication of the events, based on the “deniable” and the “undeniable”, to justify splitting you head open for not getting on the ground fast enough. The police Admit but spin what they can’t deny (i.e. conclusive video or audio recording), and deny anything prejudicial, or any material fact that is viewed as potentially helpful to the victim of police abuse being able to recover compensation for outrages perpetrated upon them.

A recent example of the ignorance about and misuse of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)  is the arrest of actress Daniele Watts in Los Angeles by the LAPD. The LAPD received a call that a man and a woman were getting it on in a car in Los Angeles. When they arrived at the scene they saw Daniel Watts and her boyfriend, but they weren’t doing anything. The LAPD Officer started his investigation for a possible case of lewd conduct in public (Cal. Penal Code § 647(a)) and asked Ms. Watts for her name. She refused to tell the officer her name, claiming that she had a right not to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Watt’s claim was correct, the LAPD Officer told her that she had no such right and that she was obligated to divulge her identity to him (which is not the law.) Because of Ms. Watts’ refusal to identify herself, the LAPD Officer handcuffed her and placed her in the back seat of his patrol car (listen to recording here.)

Throughout the contact, one can hear the officer repeat that he had “probable cause” (of some crime; which he didn’t), and that when the police are investigating a crime that a civilian has a duty to cooperate with the police including having to tell the police who they are, under the threat of arrest for non-compliance for Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1). The officer was wrong on both counts.    First, a person has no obligation to cooperate with a police investigation; especially of themselves. See, People v. Shelton, 60 Cal.2d 740 (1964) (“A suspect has no duty to cooperate with officers in securing evidence against him . . . “.) Second, since 1980 the California Courts have held that it is not a crime for a person to refuse to identify themselves to the police; even if they’re being lawful detained (save when they’re at the jail and are being booked)  See, In re Chase C., Cal.App.4 (12/18/15); In re Gregory S.,112 Cal. App. 3d 764, 779 (1980); People v. Quiroga, 16 Cal.App.4th 961 (1993); People v. Christopher, 137 Cal.App.4th 418 (2006); United States v. Christian, 356 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, 820 F.2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1987).   So, while LAPD Chief Charlie Beck was on radio and television defending his officer’s arrest of Ms. Watts for refusing to divulge her name (See KCAL 9 TV Broadcast), he was encouraging other LAPD officers to commit crimes against civilians like the LAPD officer did against Ms. Watts when he cuffed her and placed her in his car for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) for failing to identify herself. That’s a federal crime by the LAPD Officer; a violation of federal constitutional rights under color of authority; 18 U.S.C. § 242; a felony. Fear not, however, Chief Beck; the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office has now come to your rescue. The California District Attorney’s Association and the California Department of Justice has even published guidance for California Peace Officers on this issue, and that guidance is that a failure to identify oneself to a peace officer is not a crime in California:

As things turned out, Ms. Watts was criminally prosecuted, but not for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1), but for misdemeanor public indecency. She ended-up pleading to the lowest charge in the Penal Code; misdemeanor disturbing the peace.

Mr. Steering has consulted on, or have represented clients, in thousands of these “Contempt of Cop” cases; both civil (suing the police and their employer) and criminal (defending bogus “contempt of cop” type cases.) Most of the police reports in these contempt of cop cases are cookie-cutter type reports. The officers use certain terminology in a way, that literally anything can be justified (i.e. a) the suspect’s hands were reaching for his waistband area, so I shot him; b) the suspect took an aggressive stance with fists clenched, so I tased him; or c) the suspect took an aggressive stance with fists clenched, so I punched him in the face, hip threw him on the ground, pulled him arms up behind his back and cuffed him; all with officer’s knee and body weight in neck of victim (“suspect”); d) the suspect said “f___k you to me, and took a swing at me; e) the suspect appeared to be impervious to pain, so I had to repeatedly hit him with my baton, which didn’t seem to have any affect on the suspect; f) my taser had no effect on the suspect so I hit him with my baton; and on, and on and on; and g) the suspect keep his hands underneath his body and wouldn’t allow me to pull his arms back, so I punched him in the head with hammer blows, and he gave up.

This B.S. goes on and on and on.) The politicians won’t take any action against the police, until they perceive that the body politic does, or foreseeable, will, or disapprove. So, for example, two Fullerton, California police officers were recently acquitted on murders charges for the beating death of Kelly Thomas; notwithstanding that the video and audio recordings of the beating death show two cops, threatening to, and then beating Kelly Thomas to death.

So, for example, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department statistics, in the year 2010, the LASD shot and killed 15 people who they claim were reaching for their waistband; none of whom were found to have had a weapon when they were shot.
Police Misconduct is rampant and condoned and defended by the command structure of most, if not all, modern police agencies. There is a “Blue Code of Silence“ between and among peace officers throughout the nation, and everyone knows this.

This is no startling revelation. The County of Los Angeles has itself released a report Commissioner by the Board of Supervisors, acknowledging the existence of, and actually condemning, the Sheriff’s Department’s own rogue gangs of sadistic jailers at the Los Angeles County Central Men’s Jail. See, The Citizens Commission on Jail Violence September 28, 2012.

A retired Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Captain reported to the Los Angeles Times, that the L.A. County Men’s Central Jail was, essentially, a torture chamber, run by these jailer gangs (tattoos of their gang symbols on their ankles and all) of sadistic sociopaths. Discipline for beatings was not existent, and torturing inmates was actually required for jailer gang initiation. See, “L.A. County sheriff’s official tells of jail brutality”, LA Times, July 7, 2012. See also, “L.A. County jail violence sheriff’s fault, panel says“, LA Times, September 28, 2012. Rival Sheriff’s Department jailer gangs even got into a rumble between the “3000 Boys” (the third floor jailers) and the “2000 Boys” (the second floor jailers)at a Sheriff’s Department Christmas party. 

More recently, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca was convicted of conspiring with his subordinately deputies and staff to obstruct an FBI investigation into allegations of sadistic beatings of inmates by deputies, and an overall culture of violence and brutality at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Lee Baca resigned from office over a scandal at the LA County Men’s Central Jail involving the Indictment of 18 LASD Deputy Sheriffs and their Supervisors for torturing prisoners and obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the same.

On February 10, 2016, Sheriff Baca was convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2); lying to the FBI regarding his knowledge of a scheme in the Sheriff’s Department to intimidate an FBI agent who was investigating complaints of beatings of inmates by deputies at the Los Angeles County Jail, and to hide an FBI informant – jail inmate from his FBI handlers.

Former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, along with a retired LASD Captain, were indicted on May 13, 2015 by a federal Grand Jury for Obstructing and Conspiring to Obstruct a federal Grand Jury investigation of the rampant torturing of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jail (See, Paul Tanaka Indictment of May 13, 2015.)

That’s not the end of it. Former LASD Deputy Sheriff Noel Womack pleaded guilty in June of 2015 to federal charges of lying to the FBI about systemic LASD torturing and framing of inmates at the Los Angeles County Jails. In 2014, six LASD Deputy Sheriffs were convicted of obstructing the FBI’s investigation of the torturing of prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jails.

Thereafter, on April 6, 2016, former LASD Undersheriff was convicted by a jury of  violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiring to obstruct justice) and 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (obstructing justice), for not only obstructing an FBI investigation into years of beatings and torturing of inmates at the L.A. County Jail, but also Tanaka and other high ranking Sheriff’s Department officials threatening one of the FBI agents involved in that investigation, with arrest for continuing that investigation. In his trial, Tanaka admitted that he still had the Minnesota Vikings Logo tattoo on his leg; a tattoo that he described as a member in a club; the “Vikings”; a tatoo that the federal courts have held is the gang taoo for a “neo-Nazi white supremacists gang within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. See, Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504 (1992).

Nonetheless, the body politic tolerates the existence, and the perpetuation of an ongoing unwritten agreement among and between peace officers, to falsely report, and, if necessary, to thereafter conspire with officers who they may not yet even know, to falsely testify, about event(s), if the potential or apparent criminal, administrative and civil liability of a fellow officer is at stake. After all, in the primary category of cases that truly are “false arrests” in the most malevolent sense of the word, “Contempt of Cop cases”, the only reason that there’s an arrest of a civilian at all, is because the Constable has violated another (i.e. beaten-up / torture); usually to self-medicate rather frail and easily bruise-able egos.

Anaheim PD had six of these bogus waistband shootings in 2012. Huntington Beach also had its share of shooting unarmed persons. Remember; the various County District Attorney’s in California are not going to prosecute a police officer for a duty related activity (i.e. beating your brains in with a baton while officer’s partner cuffs you up for no crime at all; for failing to instantly obey them.)

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, AND ANSWERS ABOUT “CONTEMPT OF COP CASES”.

WHY AM I BEING FALSELY CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED WHEN I’M THE VICTIM?

You’re Being Criminally Prosecuted Because Prosecutors Are Either: 1) The Instrument Of Police Oppression, Or 2) Simply Incompetent In Their Understanding Of What Type Of Conduct, Can Be, And Actually Is, Criminalized, By The “Contempt Of Cop” Group Of Criminal Statutes

Approximately, 95% of “Contempt of Cop” case criminal prosecutions are bogus; either: 1) simple frame-ups, to justify a peace officer’s use of force, or an unlawful arrest, or some other commonly committed Constitutional violations, or 2) simply mind boggling applications (i.e. strained theories of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) violations), or misunderstandings (i.e. don’t understand what Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) proscribes), by public prosecutors, as to what types of constitutionally protected conduct, can be criminalized by the government, and, what conduct actually is so criminalized by California criminal statutes. These “Contempt of Cop” cases, sometimes referred to as “Obstruction Crimes” (i.e. resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer, assault and battery on peace officer) are so rampant, that even the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department own Semi-Annual Reports show that phony charges of resisting a peace officer are most often brought to shift the blame, from the offending police offer to his/her citizen victim.

The District Attorney’s Office is the police. They will routinely file these bogus criminal       “contempt of cop” actions at the request of police agencies, who need to get their victims criminally prosecuted; to beat them down, and to make them take a plea of some sort; to preclude, or at least substantially impair, the police misconduct victim’s (the criminal defendant’s) ability to seek redress; civil, or otherwise; a basic First Amendment Constitutional right (to sue and/or complain about the police; the rights of Freedom of Speech and to Petition the government for redress of grievances.)

Motives For Public Prosecutors To File A Bogus Criminal Action.

Simple “Frame-ups”, To Justify A Peace Officer’s Use Of Force, Or An Unlawful Arrest, Or Some Other Commonly Committed Constitutional Violations.

Police agencies will almost always back the police officer who beat you, tased you, shot you, pepper-sprayed you, falsely arrested you, submitted false police reports to get you criminally prosecuted, or otherwise abused you. They will destroy evidence, conceal evidence, fabricate evidence, author false police reports, procure false and malicious criminal prosecutions; commonly and routinely for bogus claims of resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer, assault and battery on a peace officer, and other similar frame-up to cover crimes/torts by cops, and suborn perjury. They will do (almost) anything that will tend to exonerate the officer who victimized you. They do this by falsely prosecuting you.

These cases are, for the most part, misdemeanor criminal prosecutions. Some of the creepier prosecutors think that they’re actually doing you a favor, by allowing you to plead away your civil claims and give you a minor conviction (i.e. misdemeanor, infraction or a plea with a deferred entry of judgment.) Moreover, the deck is staked against you to the maximum extent permitted by law. For example, in Orange County, California, the Court will only provide a Court Reporter for a misdemeanor criminal case, if the defendant is indigent. Otherwise, you can pay the Court Reporters fee for the trial (probably about $1,500.00 per day if you’re lucky; as if the defendant can even afford the lawyer.)

Moreover, the prosecutors in these “contempt of cop“ type cases, are usually young and aggressive newer lawyers, who are learning to be trial lawyers by prosecuting misdemeanors, and seeking to make a name for themselves. Many of them see these “contempt of cop” type cases, as an opportunity to increase their influence with the various police agencies that they are protecting from obloquy, and civil and criminal liability, as well as their rising star status with the DA’s office.

In City’s such as Los Angeles and Anaheim, the City Attorneys Office prosecutes misdemeanor offenses, and the District Attorneys office still prosecutes felonies. These City Attorneys Offices, are the very same agencies that are charged with defending the City coffers, from being depleted by lawsuits brought by victims of Constitutional violations, perpetrated upon the criminal defendant that they are prosecuting. If the police misconduct victim, pleads guilty, then, generally, they are barred from suing for a false arrest, and sometimes even from suing for excessive force.

That all being the case, many Deputy District Attorneys and City Attorneys are quite motivated to “Frame The Innocent”; to emotionally and financially beat-down, and (primarily) to civilly impair or disable, the victim of police misconduct (i.e. false arrest / excessive force / malicious prosecution / withholding exculpatory evidence) from vindicating both their honor and dignity (by convicting you.)

a) For career advancement of misdemeanor prosecutors within their own agency, and within the law enforcement community(protecting the County / City coffers, and, perhaps, hoping someday to seek the endorsement of the police, in a run for Judge;

b) Because the Deputy District Attorneys who review case filing packets that are sent from police agencies, actually do not understand that the conduct complained of by the police, does not constitute a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1); misdemeanor “resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his/her duties.” This is more common that one might imagine.

c)  To protect the offending peace officers, and their employing agency, from civil and administrative liability;

d) To protect the offending peace officers, from criminal liability;

e) To protect the offending peace officers, from criminal internal discipline (i.e. an admonition, to suspension, or termination from employment);

f) To protect their pending and past criminal and civil cases, involving the offending officers. Officers who have a proven bad reputation for honesty or brutality, are essentially “finished” as police officers, as the prosecution has a duty to disclose such exculpatory evidence to the defense (i.e. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and “proven liars” are not all that convincing in Court. Moreover, when police officers are caught committing crimes of dishonesty (perjury, framing innocents, false arrests based upon lies by the officer(s), stealing narcotics, selling narcotics, torturing inmates and other persons in police custody), persons who were convicted, and may still be in prison, maybe able to vacate their convictions and to get out of prison,. even if they’[re guilty, because many appellate courts feel that a conviction based on the testimony of such a police officer cannot stand.

The “perjury show” involved in the prosecution of these type of cases is choreographed by the police agency, the District Attorney’s Office, and their experts and minions. That’s right; perjury. Ask any judge or lawyer about the chances of any witness in a Court proceeding actually getting prosecuted for perjury, for testifying falsely in a California or Federal courtroom. After all, in almost every case, criminal or civil, there are two mutually exclusive versions of at least the key material facts. Someone must be lying, so someone is usually committing perjury in a trial. By the way, perjury is a crime that usually requires two witnesses to convict, so if you’re alone and get gooned by the local Constables, the threat of a perjury prosecution, is generally not available as any protection for those unfortunates who were beaten-up, because the police are guaranteed not to tell the truth.

HOW CAN I POSSIBLY BE PROSECUTED FOR A CRIME THAT I AM INNOCENT OF?

In California, the Deputy District Attorney’s have a slogan: “Anyone can convict the guilty”; It takes real talent, however, to convict the innocent.” It takes even less talent to convict one of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1.) Almost all “Contempt of Cop cases” usually allege bogus violations of the following statutes: 1) Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer); 2) Cal. Penal Code § 240 / 241(c)) (assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code § 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code § 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence.) Cal. Penal Code § 69 is a “wobbler”; a California public offense that may be filed by the District Attorney’s Office as either a felony or a misdemeanor. In Orange County, Riverside County and Los Angeles County, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are usually filed as misdemeanors. In San Bernardino County, however, allegations of violation of Cal. Penal Code § 69 are filed as felonies more often than her sister counties. Mr. Steering has advised or consulted on, or have represented clients in, literally thousands, of these “contempt of cop” type cases; both civil and criminal. By far, the most commonly abused criminal in California is the primary “contempt of cop” statute; violation of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1).

WHY ARE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COP CASES SO DIFFICULT TO DEFEND IN COURT?

“Contempt of Cop” cases, especially California Penal Code Section § 148(a)(1) cases, are very often difficult to defend, because of several factors, including:

1) The Ambiguity Of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1);

2) The Barriers to Discovery in Contempt Of Cop Cases;

3) The Jury Pools who Sit on Contempt Of Cop cases;

4) The Jury Instructions in Contempt Of Cop criminal trials;

5) The predisposition of persons to believe police officers; and

6) The ease with which police officers lie in Court; they’re professionals at it.

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 148(a)(1); THE “BOOT” OF THE POLICE STATE

The Ambiguity Of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1), Makes It Difficult To Defend, Because A Jury Can Convict You For Conduct, That’s Simply Not A Crime

The Void For Vagueness Doctrine

“To satisfy due process, a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357. The void-for-vagueness doctrine embraces these requirements.” See, United States v. Skiling, ___ U.S. ____ (2010) (“the intangible right of honest services” language of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 void for vagueness, and can be interpreted as only proscribing bribes and kickbacks; not manipulation of stock prices.)

Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1), otherwise known as “contempt of cop“, is the most abused criminal statute in California, simply because it’s so vague. It’s like “Alice in Wonderland“; it means everything and it means nothing. It’s over inclusive; it’s under inclusive. It means whatever the jury wants it to mean. For example, what does “delaying” an officer mean? Is not immediately dropping to the ground on one’s belly and putting one’s hands behind one’s back, after being ordered to do so by a peace officer, a crime? If so, why? Is failing to open the door to one’s home when directed to do so by a peace officer a crime? If so, why? Is failing to exit one’s residence when ordered to do so by a peace officer a crime? Is demanding to know what’s going on before complying with police orders a crime? Is failing to identify oneself to a peace officer upon a demand to do so, a crime? Is verbally challenging a peace officer’s authority to do something, a crime? Is arguing with a police officer “delaying” an officer’s investigation? Is causing an officer to deal with you “delaying” a peace officer? How do you know if the peace officer is engaged in the lawful performance of his/her duties; something necessary for that crime to be committed? Do we have to immediately and without question, obey whatever “commands” that we are given by a Constable? No reasonable person of average intelligence could possibly know the answers to these questions. However, persons are convicted for these very acts and omissions in California every day.

California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) is the quintessential statute that really is “void for vagueness.” See, Skiling v. United States, ___ U.S. ____ (2010.) Section 148(a)(1) is also the statute of choice by police officers to arrest a civilian for violating, for non-criminal conduct, such as for “failing the attitude test”, and other non-criminal actions (i.e. questioning or challenging or protesting police conduct) that lead to Section 148(a) arrests. The ambiguity of Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1) creates an opportunity to arrest innocents for “imaginary”(contrived) conduct, that is really no crime at all. Section 148(a)(1) prosecutions are the government’s vehicle to beat-down the victims of the police abuse (i.e. false arrests, excessive force); to use a criminal case to preclude or impair civil redress to those police abuse victims. See, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477(1994) (can’t sue for false arrest if convicted of crime, even if government didn’t have warrant or probable cause to arrest when arrest was made); See also, Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 94 Cal.App.4th 1401 (2002) (can’t sue cops for excessive force if convicted of resisting arrest.)

There are a variety of Appellate Court cases that provide guidance on what exactly, Section 148(a)(1) prohibits, and what type of conduct is, or is not, proscribed by that statute. So, for example, Appellate cases regarding Section 148(a)(1) show guiding lights as to what that statute means, such as: 1) a person need not quickly respond to even lawful police commands, and has a Constitutional right to verbally challenge, dispute or protest police actions (See, People v. Quiroga, 16 Cal.App.4th 961,966 (1993).) That’s really not what the problem is. The problem is, that in a real criminal trial, in a real California Superior Court, with a real California Superior Court Judge, it is unlikely that when the jury is instructed by the Court on what conduct Section 148(a)(1) prohibits, the Standard California Judicial Council Jury Instructions for violation of Section 148(a)(1) will be given, and not those other Appellate Court cases that provide enough guidance for a jury to know what Section 148(a)(1) actually proscribes.

When a Jury Instruction for a criminal offense is contained in the California Judicial Council Standard Form Jury Instruction Manual (“CALCRIM“), that instruction is usually the only instruction given to the jury on that issue. Although “Special Instructions” are submitted by the lawyers in a case to the court, most of the time they are not given. The Standard California Judicial Council Jury Instructions for violation of Section 148(a)(1) is CALCRIM 2656. It is essentially a recitation of the statute, with an explanation that a peace officer is not lawfully performing his/her duties if they are making an unlawful detention or arrest, or are using excessive force. The California Appellate Courts have integrated the holding of People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969) into CALCRIM 2670; that since a peace officer has no duty to act unlawfully, that if the peace officer is acting unlawfully, that he/she is not engaged in the lawful performance of her duties. However, the Jury Instruction does not mention other unlawful conduct, such as, for example: a)First Amendment retaliation (i.e. cop taking action against another for exercise of protected free speech); b) cop unlawfully entering residence to make arrest; c) cop executing a search warrant that is either facially deficient, or was obtained unlawfully     [insufficient probable cause alleged, or outright falsehoods in warrant application to have obtained warrant]; d) ordering one out of residence; e) unreasonably seizing civilians in an unnecessarily painful, humiliating or degrading way. These are but just a few examples, but the point is made; that there are many things that the police do that are unlawful, and unlawful conduct by a police officer is a defense to, such as to violations of:1) Cal. Penal Code 148(a)(1) (resisting / obstructing / delaying peace officer); 2) Cal. Penal Code 240 / 241(c)) (assault on a peace officer); 3) Cal. Penal Code 242 / 243(b) (battery on a peace officer); and 4) Cal. Penal Code 69 (interfering with public officer via actual or threatened use of force or violence) (See, People v. Curtis , 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969) (defendant cannot be guilty of any crime, an element of which, requires the police officer to be in the lawful performance of his/her duties.) However, it doesn’t matter if those constitutional violations (the examples of unlawful police conduct) are viable defenses in criminal actions for “Contempt Of Cop“ crimes, because if those defenses aren’t contained in a special Jury Instruction, anything that the lawyers say to the jury is just argument; nothing more, and without the force of the law; the law by which they are instructed.

Accordingly, because there are so many creative ways that a prosecutor can claim that certain conduct is criminalized by Section 148(a)(1), and so little guidance, the jury is left to basically decide your guilt or innocence by how they feel about you and about your conduct during the incident complained of. Just Imagine, you got your butt kicked in front of your children for protesting an officer’s command to prostrate yourself on the ground, and the prosecution argues any of those examples discussed above. If you said words that might anger a juror, or act in a manner that they can’t imagine themselves acting like (until someone tells one of them to get down on the ground, immediately and without question), then “Contempt Of Cop“ is just the ticket for the jury to let you know that they disapprove of your conduct. Moreover, typically, most of the disapproved conduct perceived by the jury, is based upon police fabrications and choreographed perjury, rather than the actual conduct of the “Contempt Of Cop“ criminal defendant. Unlike most other legitimate professions, lying under oath is an art form in the police profession. It is literally their job; their duty to themselves.

The deal is so rigged against most people, who cannot pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, to defend your honor and your dignity. For example, in California Superior Courts, you actually have to pay to get criminally prosecuted (i.e. have copies of items of discovery made for your lawyer.) Behind the Orange Curtain you don’t get a free court reporter in a misdemeanor case; even for a jury trial; something mind boggling , since you get one every where else in Southern California, unless your indigent.] So, if you have your own retained counsel in a criminal case, your going to have to bring your court reporter for any misdemeanor case, because the County of Orange is too cheap to pay for one.

“THE GREATEST SCAM ON EARTH”; WHY THE AVERAGE INNOCENT JOE OR JANE , GETS CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR “RESISTANCE” / “CONTEMPT OF COP” CRIMES: PART II; THE DISCOVERY “SHAM” OF THE EVIDENCE CODE’S STATUTORY SCHEME FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS.

The Barriers to Pre-Trial “Discovery” in Contempt Of Cop Cases.

Barriers to Discovery Of Items Of Evidence, Not Contained In Police Personnel Records; California’s Statutory Scheme For Discovery In Criminal Cases; Proposition 115 and Cal. Penal Code 1054 et seq.

One would think that one’s “liberty” interest, is even greater than their “financial or pecuniary” interest. That being the case, one would opine that “discovery” in a criminal action, would be at least as expansive as that in mere civil litigation; haggling over money. However, the opposite is the case. This seemingly unjustifiable position is justified and condoned by the politicians, since they view the body politic as presuming that if you’re arrested, then you must be guilty, and, therefore, the citizenry is not going to pay for those pesky depositions and document and evidence production demands and inquiries. Moreover, in California Superior Courts, you actually have to pay to get criminally prosecuted (i.e. have copies of items of discovery made for your lawyer.) Behind the Orange Curtain you don’t get a free court reporter, even for a jury trial, in a misdemeanor criminal case; something mind boggling [you get one every where else in Southern California, unless your indigent.] So, if you have your own retained counsel in a criminal case, your going to have to bring your own court reporter to transcribe your trial, which will costs you approximately $1,500.00 – $2,000.00 per day, depending on how soon you want the transcript.

Mr. Steering also has, over the years, developed criminal case discovery strategies for these actions, that, in large part, are due to 1) extensive experience in obtaining criminal discovery in these types of cases, and 2) intricate knowledge of what items of evidence are available from a particular police agency, that will help show your innocence. This is in large part, due to Mr. Steering’s obtaining discovery of evidence in hundreds of civil lights actions (i.e. suing the police.) Most of the time in Superior Court criminal actions, because of Proposition 115 (that limits discovery in criminal actions; See, (Cal. Penal Code 1054 et seq.), the police simply don’t give the prosecution what items of evidence that they have about a particular case, even though it is perfectly clear to them that the items of evidence are not privileged, and must be turned-over to the lawyer for the criminal defendant. Prior to Proposition 115, criminal defense lawyers in California were able to directly subpoena the police agencies for items of evidence.

Proposition 115 changed that. It requires that a criminal defendant who seeks evidence from the police agency that was an investigating and/or arresting agency in your case, first make an informal request upon the prosecutor for the requested items. After the prosecutor then fails to produce all of the items of evidence, the criminal defendant make bring a Motion to Compel Discovery. The problem with all of this, is that at the hearings on the Motion to Compel Discovery, the prosecutor usually tells the Court that he/she requested the items of evidence sought from the police agency, and that they told him that the items don’t exist. This is normal, even though in the majority of these Motions and requests, the items really do exist; the police just don’t want to produce them (either too lazy or the evidence is too exculpatory.) Once the prosecutor tells the Judge that the sought items of evidence don’t exist, that’s it for most Judges. You don’t get what you need and your Motion to Compel is denied. Some Judges will let you call witnesses at the hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery (usually from the same police agency from which the evidence is being sought), but there is no provision in the California Penal Code’s statutory criminal discovery scheme for such hearings.

Moreover, lawyers who don’t do civil rights cases, do not have the opportunity to learn and determine, what types of items of “real evidence” are available from a particular police agency, because: 1) you can’t take depositions in criminal cases, so the criminal (only) lawyer can’t ask questions of key agency personnel about key items of evidence (including how the information is stored, what the items are, and what the items of evidence are used for); 2) the discovery methods available in civil rights cases (especially in federal court, such a demands for identification, inspection and production of documents, interrogatories and request for admissions) are much more productive than the exclusive method of discovery in California criminal cases (Cal. Penal Code 1054 et seq.), and 3) you can’t get any really meaningful or detailed information about the police officer / deputy sheriff that you’re accused of committing a crime against in a California Superior Court criminal prosecution (See, later, Section on Limited Discovery In State Criminal Prosecutions; Pitchess Motions.) Accordingly, no one is accountable. The prosecutor says that the police say items of evidence don’t exist, and the police are usually not called upon to say anything. When the Judge actually allows the criminal defense lawyer to put police agency witnesses on the stand at hearings on Motions to Compel regular criminal discovery (in Riverside County the Judges usually don’t allow such testimony), half of the time the police either flat out lie (i.e. don’t have theses items), or claim that they couldn’t find any such requested items. Who is going to call them on their lies? The District Attorney’s Office? The Attorney General? The U.N.? The Pope? Who? The answer is no one, and you, the falsely accused, get screwed. Fair?

Therefore, your lawyer needs to be an expert in evidence preservation, since police agencies are notorious for claiming that something doesn’t exist; only later to be disproven, but not with any consequences. The Law Office of Jerry L. Steering uses the most current techniques based on existing evidence preservation law, to shore-up the odds in the “scales of justice” / “good vs. evil” scheme of things, by making the proper discovery demands to the investigation / arresting police agency, and by make the proper discovery demands to prosecuting authorities, and the motions to compel discovery that usually have to be filed to actually get the myriad of material / probative evidentiary items.

If you have a contempt of cop case, civil or criminal, the Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering can help you. Please call us at (949) 474-1849, or email us at info@steeringlaw.com.

Law Office of Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering