Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

Corruption is top-down and widespread at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, according to a lawsuit recently filed by a 10-year veteran of the agency, who claims she lost her job when she made the mistake of telling the truth.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand the allegations in this case are serious, but unfortunately, not altogether surprising.

The claimant worked for more than a decade at the agency. She would have had every reason to remain loyal to the force, as she was a fourth-generation member of law enforcement. Growing up with that kind of background had emboldened her to take on a role rarely pursued by female deputies: gang unit street patrol.

Over the course of that time, she told KABC-Los Angeles that seeds of doubt regarding the integrity of the agency and its deputies began to grow.

Ultimately, it exploded in her face in the wake of a confrontational encounter between her partner, a female suspect and a man who was nearby.

According to the former deputy, she and her partner were on a call when her male law enforcement partner, for reasons that are not yet clear from media reports, allegedly grabbed a female suspect and slammed her against the squad car. To the former deputy's knowledge, that was the extent of the incident.

But hours later, her partner mentioned to a supervisor that he had been choked by a male suspect who had been at the scene.

When the case went to trial, the female deputy refused to back up her partner's claim, despite what she says was significant pressure on her to lie to protect both her partner and the agency from embarrassment. She believes the alleged assault on an officer never happened. She couldn't justify sending an innocent man to prison just so the department could save face.

The jury ultimately acquitted the defendant, and soon after, the female deputy was fired.

She says today that whatever happens with her civil case, she rests easy knowing that she saved an innocent man from several years of prison time.

"That to me is worth it," she said.

Such honor is sadly not always present among the L.A.S.D. ranks. The former deputy now says she firmly believes that the fact that she is a woman has a lot to do with why the agency took the action against her that it did.

She reported on numerous prior occasions when fellow deputies demeaned and ridiculed her. One colleague told her she was "an embarrassment to females." Another told her to make herself useful by making the other deputies some sandwiches. In another instance, she was told she was worthless and ordered to go put on an apron.

A representative for the sheriff's department says that sexual harassment does not exist in the agency. Such a sweeping outright denial in itself is suspect, especially given the agency's recent history of losing and settling a number of high-cost, high-profile sexual harassment claims.

The former deputy said that in addition to personal compensation for the improper loss of her job, she hopes a civil rights investigation will be launched into a number of specific excessive force allegations she is also making.

Continue reading "Widespread Corruption at Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, Alleges Former Deputy" »

A two-year investigation recently concluded by the U.S. Department of Justice has found that sheriff's deputies in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's northern sectors of Palmdale and Lancaster routinely used racial bias in subjecting black public housing residents to unnecessary stops, seizures and the use of excessive and unreasonable force, even when individuals were handcuffed.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys are appalled by what has apparently been allowed to unfold in these regions for years unchecked by higher-ups within the agency.

The Mojave Desert stations, located about 70 miles north of Los Angeles, became the subject of a federal inquiry after a series of similar complaints were lodged by black residents who had recently moved to the area. Virtually all of their stories were the same and involved a violation of their civil rights by officers who had formed an opinion against them primarily on the basis of their skin color and also where they lived.

The report minced no words: The LASD engaged in a pattern of unreasonable force against its minority populace. What's more, of 180 officer misconduct complaints made by residents over the course of 12 months, only one of those complaints was formally investigated internally by the agency.

This is not the first time the agency has come under scrutiny for its interactions with minorities, specifically in the Antelope Valley region. A 2010 report released by the Police Assessment Resources Center found deputies there were more likely to use force in obstruction arrests against minority suspects than with their white counterparts.

The following year, the Community Action League and the NAACP filed suit alleging that deputies in Lancaster and Palmdale were racially discriminant against those who lived in low-income housing areas.

Sheriff Lee Baca has said that he disagrees with the conclusion of the federal report, but nonetheless has "instituted reforms to improve the department." Of course, if nothing was wrong, why would it require improvement?

A spokesman for the department was quoted as saying it firmly denies any allegation of discrimination or racial profiling, saying, "We haven't seen any." Of course, that's easy to say when your agency turns a blind eye to such problems by simply refusing to investigate the claims.

In Palmdale, the city is comprised of two-thirds black residents, according to data from the U.S. Census. It's worth noting that the area of Antelope Valley had the highest rate of alleged hate crimes in Los Angeles County as of 2010, according to federal authorities.

Latino and black residents were more likely than those of any other race to be pulled over and searched. However, most weren't cited, calling into question whether deputies ever had any real probable cause to initiate most of these stops in the first place. Additionally, it was reported that sheriff's deputies, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, routinely placed black suspects in the back of police cruisers for minor offenses.

Among the reforms promised by Baca include re-training deputies on the use-of-force policy and participation in community feedback meetings. Deputies must also carry complaint forms when they are out on patrol. However, it's unclear what good that will do if the agency doesn't take any meaningful steps to alter its approach to actually investigating those complaints.

Continue reading "DOJ: Racism by Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputies Ran Rampant" »

The ex-girlfriend of a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy has filed a federal lawsuit against the agency, on behalf of herself and two young daughters, alleging that the agency didn't take her complaints of domestic abuse seriously because of her boyfriend's job.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers know that nobody is above the law, and an agency that offers special treatment to its own in criminal cases not only breaks its own code of ethics, but also the law.

The complainant asserts that the agency systematically denies justice to victims of domestic violence when the accused is someone who works as a law enforcement officer within the agency.

The complainant says that the deputy, who fathered her two daughters, now ages 11 and 6, began abusing her soon after the birth of their first child, back in 2003. She asserts that she left him for a time, but he begged for her to come back - a cycle with which domestic violence victims are well familiar.

Soon after she moved back in, the deputy reportedly resumed his behavior of drinking heavily, screaming at her and then hitting her. These actions often took place in front of the couple's young children. As such, the older child began to suffer injuries mental and emotional issues, which caused her grades to suffer significantly.

The complainant says that she called the sheriff's department, which had jurisdiction where they lived, to her home on numerous occasions to report the abuse. However, at no point was the accused ever arrested or even scolded by his supervisors. This was despite the fact that she frequently displayed bruises and other injuries to responding officers.

In one instance, she claims that the boyfriend's fellow deputies even assisted him in having her removed from their home, which was jointly-owned, after she called to report him for battering her.

In one specific incident in April 2012, she said her boyfriend began to scream at her for leaving a sandwich in the toaster oven while she was readying herself and the girls for church. In a rage, her boyfriend dumped an entire pot of coffee in the trash, grabbed and twisted her wrist and threw the sandwich at her. When she said she would call the police, her aggressor dared her, saying she would be the one arrested, not him.

She subsequently called her boyfriend's supervisor, a lieutenant, begging him to have someone come help. An officer arrived and, as the boyfriend had threatened, said she could be arrested for battery because the boyfriend alleged that she had thrown the sandwich at him. The officer reportedly refused to get statements from the children and told her to "stop acting like a victim" and simply leave if it was so bad.

Of course, anyone who has endured an abusive relationship knows it's not always so simple. In fact, leaving a relationship is often the most dangerous time.

The responding officer then told her if she did not pack her bags and leave the home, she would be arrested.

Other instances of abuse involved being struck in the eye with a large book, being threatened while her boyfriend drove drunk and recklessly and his refusal to transport her daughter to the hospital after she suffered a broken arm.

Yet after each reported incident, the responding officers sided with her boyfriend.

Her lawsuit seeks an injunction against him, as well as a declaratory judgment for battery, assault and gender violence.

Continue reading "L.A. Sheriff's Spouse Alleges Domestic Abusers Given "Free Pass"" »

A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy may face criminal charges, as well as a possible civil lawsuit, for his alleged abuse of an inmate who was serving as an informant to federal investigators.

Our Los Angeles police brutality attorneys understand that the deputy in question reportedly targeted the inmate solely because he was providing information to agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding an international drug trafficking operation.

Last July, the inmate, who had been assigned a number of handlers, revealed that the deputy in question had punched him in both the ribs and torso. At the time, the deputy reportedly chastised the informant, saying he was no one special and threatening to cause him further physical harm if they were ever alone in a room together for any extended length of time.

This is not the first time the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department has been hounded with allegations of staff-inflicted violence on inmates. Two years ago, Sheriff Lee Baca acknowledged that brutality at the jail - the nation's largest - was a problem.

However, the Los Angeles Times learned there were documents revealing that officials had known about the abuse and misconduct for potentially years prior. Cases involved numerous allegations of excessive force, for which no one was ever punished.

An audit found that in a single year, there were at least 100 violent encounters between inmates and deputies after which it was learned that deputies had "dramatized" the circumstances of what had occurred in order to justify their use of excessive force.

In other cases, deputies delayed stepping in with weapons that could end violent physical fights between inmates. The goal, the report indicated, was to ensure "jailhouse justice" was carried out before authorities stepped in.

Some of the violence inflicted by deputies against inmates was reportedly triggered by a display of disrespect by the inmate. But in many cases, no matter how severe the injury, supervisors failed to interview all relevant witnesses or implement any discipline for the deputies. And out of four cases in which additional training was ordered, only two of the deputies actually bothered to go.

So it is amid this backdrop that we have the most recent incident.

A number of others backed the inmate's story, including one deputy who reported that he was on the other side of a wall when he heard what sounded like a confrontation between the informant and the deputy. The deputy reported that when he rounded that corner, he saw his colleague pinning the informant against the wall, and the informant in tears.

Jail records reveal that the informant had proven a reliable source for information on the operations of a significant drug-smuggling ring, which had recently led to a six-figure bust.

A spokesman for the sheriff's office said that an internal investigation by the agency had been completed and that, at least for the time being, the deputy had been relegated to a desk job, while criminal prosecutors determine their next move. It was unclear whether the deputy's alleged abuse had any effect on the informant's ability to continue to assist federal authorities.

It's not even the first time this particular deputy has been accused of mistreatment. Another inmate said the deputy had elbowed him hard in the ribs, following a perceived slight, and then threatened to shock him with a Taser.

The deputy is also accused of threatening another fellow deputy with physical harm, though it's not clear what that encounter entailed.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Deputy Accused of Brutality Against Inmate Informant" »

Alleging a massive and ongoing violation of public privacy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed suit against both the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles Police Department.

The groups say that the lawsuit stems from the agencies' ongoing use of license plate-reading devices, which are affixed to patrol vehicles.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys know that these tiny cameras are on constant alert, routinely scanning the license plates of passing vehicles and comparing them to criminal databases. The primary goal, police say, is to search for stolen vehicles or vehicles that are registered to those with felony warrants.

Police agencies have not been shy about praising the technology, saying that it allows them to catch more stolen vehicle suspects than they ever would on their own. The cameras also tabulate the exact location of the vehicle and the time at which it was recorded, which can allow officers to track suspects, even if they launch a search months or possibly years after the vehicle was spotted.

However, the lawsuit maintains that in doing so, the police have stored information that amounts to a violation of privacy. The issue is not so much the initial scan. Rather, it's the storing of that information indefinitely into a database, regardless of whether those license plates scanned were connected to vehicles or individuals suspected of involvement in a crime.

The ACLU and the EFF are demanding that if law enforcement agencies are going to continue collecting this information, they should destroy it within a matter of weeks if it is deemed not useful for the purposes of a pointed criminal investigation.

The argument is that, while the benefit for law enforcement agencies of hanging onto this information is miniscule, the potential privacy violations of law-abiding citizens are numerous, particularly because these records are kept for anywhere from five years to indefinitely.

While law enforcement officials have declined to speak about the case since the filing of the lawsuit, LAPD Chief Charlie Back has previously defended the practice, saying that it has "unlimited potential" for investigators. The chief went on to say in one interview that the information collected by these scans may not only connect the vehicles or suspects to crimes that have already occurred, but to crimes that will yet occur.

So now we are investigating crimes that haven't happened yet? That's an extremely troubling precedent.

The LASO has nearly 80 police cruisers that are equipped with these devices, although little more than half of those are in working order right now. The rest are undergoing upgrades to improve the storage capabilities. Additionally, there are nearly 50 fixed cameras that are positioned at various locations throughout the county.

The LAPD has said it has about 100 of the devices.

They are certainly not alone in their practice. A survey last year conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that 7 out of 10 police agencies in the country employ these same devices.

The lawsuit was filed after the two privacy groups requested that the agencies turn over one week's worth of the data collected in the search. The agencies responded by saying that it didn't have to do so, because the information gathered was investigative. This, despite the fact that much off the information collected is culled automatically, with no connection to any specific investigation.

The privacy groups are confident that a release of the data from this short window will reveal how much peoples' privacy is being violated.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Sued for Violating Privacy" »

The family of a man who was unarmed when he was fatally shot by two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputies has filed a $15 million lawsuit against the agency and the county, alleging civil rights violations and wrongful death.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand the victim's widow has two little girls who will now grow up without their father. Authorities have said that they believed the 36-year-old was reaching for a gun as he got out of the vehicle following a short chase that ended in Willowbrook. That, the deputies say, is why they fired.

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges the two responding deputies shot their guns at the unarmed man while he stood with his hands above his head. As such, the homicide was both unjustified and unreasonable. The lawsuit indicates that witnesses and autopsy reports both back a different version of events than the one told by the deputies, who the widow's attorney described as "trigger happy." The bullets that took his life, the lawsuit alleges, were discharged at him from behind, and the wounds on his right forearm indicates his hands were up at the time those shots were fired.

The autopsy report indicates he was shot five times in both the lower and upper back.

The lawsuit alleges that the deputies actions were either intentional or negligent.

The sheriff's office is conducting its own internal investigation while the two deputies have been removed from active duty - standard procedure when a deputy is involved in an on-duty death.

From there, criminal prosecutors will make a determination on whether the action was legal.

Initial reports from the sheriff's office were that the deputies only opened fire on the man after he "made movements like he had a gun" and then turned around quickly, as if to run. Why deputies would shoot him for running is unclear, especially because he was not suspected of any violent offense.

Accounts are that on the night in question he was riding in the passenger seat of his brother's vehicle. The two were leaving the quinceañera of the victim's niece and were on their way home. It was shortly before 10:30 p.m. at the time.

An officer attempted to stop the vehicle for speeding. It's unclear why the brother did not stop immediately, but in any case, the "chase" did not go on for long. The victim then got out of the vehicle.

A woman watching from across the street from her bedroom window said that the victim complied with deputies' orders to stop running. He put his hands on his head. The officers said the victim reached for his waistband. The witness didn't see that. Instead, she said, she watched as deputies fired several rounds into the victim's back.

The brother then put the car in drive again and once again sped away, causing more cruisers to give chase. He was later arrested without incident.

Continue reading "LASD Faces $15M Lawsuit After Deputy Fatally Shoots Unarmed Man" »

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is once again the target of a civil lawsuit, this one by two deputies who had been part of a jail gang intelligence unit.

Our Los Angeles harassment lawyers understand that the two were reportedly working with a special unit in the agency when they learned that a number of department personnel were allegedly involved in illegal gangs at the jail.

Upon their release of this information, they say they were harassed, retaliated against, and prosecuted out of malice. The deputies have filed suit against the county, the sheriff, the undersheriff, and two other members of the department.

The two plaintiffs say they had been assigned to a unit called Operation Safe Jails. This unit was responsible for getting inmates to become informants, in a broader effort to curb violence between the many rival gangs that thrive inside jails.

In the course of their work, the deputies allegedly learned that at the Men's Central Jail in downtown L.A., another deputy was reportedly working closely with a gang member belonging to a white supremacist group, while a custody assistant was working with another prison gang. In effect, these employees had allegedly become powerful agents in assisting these gangs in meeting some of their end goals.

In the case of the custody assistant, a lieutenant turned over the case for investigation. An employee recently pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe in exchange for smuggling cocaine inside the jail.

However, the evidence turned over against the deputy reportedly fell on deaf ears. The lieutenant declined to pursue an investigation, instead allegedly presenting the deputy in question with the memo written by the two investigating deputies.

The goal, the plaintiffs say, was not only to intimidate them in order to prevent further investigations along those lines, but also to allow the subject of the investigation time to cover up any illegal actions.

From that point on, the two plaintiffs say they suffered harassment and threats from other deputies. One of the plaintiffs had received a DUI, and the dash camera video was posted online. Additionally, that DUI charge was boosted from a misdemeanor to a felony, allegedly without cause.

The mistreatment they suffered went beyond even harassment and malicious prosecution, they say. The lives of one of their key informants was purposely endangered, they said, after he was moved without cause from protective custody into the general population, where it was well-known he would be vulnerable to serious attack.

The plaintiffs claim that high-ranking officials within the agency, including the sheriff, blatantly ignored the safety concerns they raised, dismissed their warnings about deputies pairing up with jail gang members, and attempted to circumvent an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

The lawsuit claimed that the agency took exceptional measures to hide a certain inmate from the FBI, which sought to question him in the case of the deputy alleged to be associated with the white supremacist group.

The deputies said their own lives were threatened, and they were called "snitches" and "race traitors." They accuse both the lieutenant and the undersheriff of being a part of a gang called the Vikings, which was allegedly a racist police gang that was an extension of the prison gang. Members of the law enforcement gang reportedly had the gang's symbol tattooed somewhere on their bodies.

The two plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the form of penalties and damages, including lost and future wages.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Sued for Harassment, Retaliation" »

In his campaign to become city controller, Councilman Dennis Zine has said that his top priority would be to audit the risk management division of the Los Angeles Police Department, in an effort to determine why the agency has had so many officers recently embroiled in litigation.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys are encouraged by this pledge of action. However, according to news reports, it comes from a man who himself was the subject of a sexual harassment claim back in 1997, when he was a sergeant for the department.

In the last several years, the city has reportedly spent more than $50 million just on legal settlements. Zine has said that if officers were better supervised by their commanders, many of these situations could have been curbed before they went out of control.

Between 2006 and 2012, the city spent nearly $101 million on lawsuits. A little less than half of that was given to plaintiffs who had alleged either police misconduct or civil rights violations. Those kinds of allegations comprised the largest portion of payouts.

But the second-largest portion involved employee-on-employee complaints. For those, the city reportedly shelled out nearly $32 million, according to a report released by the chief legislative officer of the city.

And these kinds of cases have only increased in recent years.

However, they weren't nearly as common during the time period in which Zine was accused of his wrongdoing. At the time, it was alleged that he had asked a female subordinate officer to attend a work-related function with him in Canada.

Zine allegedly contended the two were dating. The female officer said they were merely friends. He later admitted that he had made romantic overtures toward her over the course of the trip. However, he insisted he never acted improperly.

Among the claims of harassment against Zine was that he had put a handful of condoms and a container of urine in the female officer's suitcase after she had refused his advances. Other officers would later say they had done this as a prank, though it was never clear what their motive may have been.

On another occasion, it was alleged that Zine climbed into the female officer's bed one night and rubbed himself against her. They had been sharing a hotel room during the trip. When she demanded that he get out, he did.

Such wildly inappropriate advances from a supervisor to a subordinate on a work-related trip, if they took place, could hardly be viewed as anything but sexual harassment.

Although an internal investigation resulted in Zine being cleared off the allegations, the disciplinary panel said that this was "hardly vindication" for the sergeant, as his actions had displayed incredibly poor judgment. Furthermore, those actions resulted in taxpayers having to pay $60,000 to defend the city against a civil action brought by the female officer. In the end, both parties reached an undisclosed settlement amount.

Still, Zine insists that all of that is irrelevant because he was technically cleared of the charges.

Plus, he said his case was of little consequence, considering that others' cases have cost the city millions of dollars - only to see the employees accused of wrongdoing later promoted. This is the professional culture that Zine has reportedly taken issue with, and that he has pledged to investigate.

Continue reading "L.A. Police Department Lawsuits to be Probed, Vows Candidate" »

Frank O'Connell spent nearly three decades in prison for a Pasadena murder he didn't commit.

Now finally freed after nearly 10,000 days behind bars, he says it was the shoddy work of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department that put him there - and he is demanding restitution.

Our Los Angeles wrongful conviction attorneys are educated in forensic sciences, and we know that many cases such as these have arisen with the advent of DNA evidence. It's now becoming clear just how faulty the sheriff's department was in so many of its criminal investigations.

This case started back in 1984, when O'Connell, then a former high school football star, was reportedly involved in a romantic relationship with the victim's ex-wife who was involved in a custody battle with the victim over their young son.

The victim was gunned down in the parking lot of his South Pasadena apartment. O'Connell reportedly matched the vague description given by a witness, who was on the other side of the darkened parking lot that night.

O'Connell, who at the time had his own 4-year-old son, has maintained all along that he was with friends that night.

The trial by judge rather than a jury - at the defendant's request - was based mostly on eyewitness testimony. In particular, it involved one individual who heard the shots from across the parking lot.

However, that witness years later recanted, saying the reality was he never did get a good look at the suspect. However, he felt pressured by the sheriff's detectives to make a positive identification after he had tentatively identified O'Connell during a photograph lineup.

The witness said he had been more focused on the gun in the assailant's hand, as opposed to the man's facial features.

The defendant was ultimately sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. His case was later chosen for assistance from Centurion Ministries, a group dedicated to helping free innocent prisoners.

Centurion Ministries later learned that another man had confessed to no fewer than five people regarding the crime. Further, Los Angeles police detectives had maintained a file regarding that individual, which included information detailing a prior attempt to kill the victim in this case. That involved the ex-wife and a male friend of hers attempting to run over the victim.

However, this information was hidden by the investigators and not turned over to the defense prior to trial.

Earlier this year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the defendant should be granted a new trial, primarily on the basis that the sheriff's department failed to disclose key records at the time of the trial that would have lead to another possible suspect. Additionally, there was evidence that they improperly influenced witnesses.

The district attorney's office has said it does not intend to retry him.

Now, he's taking legal action against the department with his lawsuit, seeking unspecified damages.

Continue reading "LASD Sued Over 1980s Wrongful Conviction" »

The reliability of police K-9 units is questionable, at best.

While our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers don't deny that a great deal of time and energy goes into training these animals, the question of how many times they get it wrong - allowing police to conduct a search under false pretenses - looms large.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department uses K-9s for a variety of different law enforcement functions, as CBS Los Angeles recently reported.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florida v. Harris held that a police dog's affirmation of a suspicious substance, used in conjunction with other evidence, is sufficient enough to warrant a search.

This decision is particularly troubling to us from the standpoint of defending clients accused of drug-related crimes. As former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Kean wrote in s2011 editorial, police officers lying on the stand with regard to illegal drug searches is ridiculously common. He called it a "not-so-secret secret" that undercover narcotics units blatantly and intentionally lie under oath and no one seems interested in stopping them.

This backing of the K-9 units' supposed infallibility is extremely troubling. Defendants typically aren't going to know enough about K-9 training to say whether an indicator given by a dog is positive. But even if the dog gives a positive indication that later turns out to be wrong, it won't matter in terms of what was uncovered in the search, so long as the officer can show that he used the "totality of evidence" in determining whether there was probable cause.

At issue here was whether police agencies had a responsibility to track a K-9 unit's in-the-field hits or misses. The court has found they don't.

Here, a defendant was pulled over on a routine stop. He refused to let the officer search his car. The officer brought out a K-9 unit, which alerted in the affirmative. The officer searched. He didn't find anything the dog was trained to locate, but he did find items typically used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested. Booked. Released.

A few days later, he was stopped by the same officer, same K-9 unit. The dog again alerted positive to drugs and again the car was searched. However this time, the officer found nothing.

The defendant sought to show that the dog's false positive record was poor. However, he couldn't do that because the agency didn't keep records of the dog's performance. And now, it's been confirmed that such records are not required.

But that doesn't mean your case is a lost cause, especially in cases where there was no other reason for the officer to suspect you of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court: Police K-9 Sniffs Up to Snuff" »

Investigators with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office are accused of framing a man on false charges of date-rape against a babysitter.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers understand that the man is claiming in his civil lawsuit that investigators with the agency knew the allegations were false, and yet pushed forward with them anyway - proceeding to arrest and book him and then forcing him to post $100,000 bail in exchange for his freedom.

According to the 53-year-old defendant, he was accused of drugging and raping the 23-year-old babysitter after he returned early from work one day. But he alleges investigators reportedly had evidence early on that he was innocent. Rather than dropping the charges, he says they forged a memo on state department of justice stationary indicating that they had found the defendant's DNA on the alleged victim's body. That letter, according to the claim, was then reportedly used by investigators to try to get the defendant to confess to a crime he didn't commit.

Further, the claimant says that investigators had evidence early on that the level of the drug found in the accuser's system ruled out the possibility that he could have administered the drug to her on the night in question. There was also no evidence of any other date rape drug and nothing else linking him to a crime.

Although the woman initially said she hadn't had sexual conduct in two years, she later retracted that statement to say she indeed had engaged in sexual intercourse, days before the alleged incident.

In the end, the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed all criminal charges. Now, the former defendant is seeking $5 million in damages.

But this case brings up another question: Why do police officers lie in the first place? What's in it for them?

Numerous sources seem to indicate the answer is: A lot.

A recent opinion article in The New York Times questioned what incentive police officers had to lie under oath. The answer often lies in the incentive programs that police or police units receive when they make a stop or an arrest. There are federal grant programs that are often based on how many arrests are made versus how many crimes are reported. Agencies that have higher arrests rates can say, "We are doing something about the crime in our city."

However, they are rarely held accountable when those arrests turn out to be false arrests.

It's perhaps more of a common phenomenon in drug cases. In fact, former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Keane wrote an editorial two years ago, decrying the widespread practice of officer perjury in justifying illegal drug searches.

Defendants rarely challenge it. Judges hardly ever call them out on it. And prosecutors certainly aren't going to dig a whole lot deeper than they need to when it comes to the officer's word against a defendant's.

But you absolutely do have rights, and one of those is to be protected from unreasonable searches, seizures or arrests based on anything but probable cause. You have the right to remain silent - but not when it comes to police misconduct, fraud or perjury.

Continue reading "LA Sheriff's Office Accused of Framing Man, A Look at Why Officers Lie" »

The portrayal of the seven members of the super-secret law enforcement clique - the seven men who promoted aggressive police tactics, offered cheers to civilian shootings and branded themselves with tattoos - is utterly disturbing.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that, ironically, these group of officers were part of the agency's anti-gang efforts, with a specific goal of removing guns from L.A. streets.

Yet, they were in many ways a gang themselves. They even had a name: The Jump Out Boys.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the group last year, but formal action by the department wasn't announced until earlier this month, when agency officials reported members of the clique had been fired.

What's probably even more troubling is the fact that such mini-gangs within the agency aren't all that uncommon. The Times reports that the agency has a "long history" with such groups. In many cases, members of these groups were elevated to top positions within the department.

To the public, the top brass has promised to crack down on these cliques, saying that they encourage conduct that is unethical and inflict damage to the agency's reputation.

The Jump Out Boys, the sheriff's office said, hadn't done anything illegal, according to the results of an internal review. However, the image the group portrayed was not in line with the official one the agency is trying to present. A pamphlet created by the group, which ultimately proved to be its undoing, likened deputies to "alpha dogs," who must think and act like "wolves," (i.e., criminals) but never actually become wolves.

Additionally, the department noted that the identical tattoos the members of this group got were huge smiling skulls with skeletal hands grasping a gun. Those who had been involved in an on-the-job shooting would mark it with ink depicting smoke from the barrel.

Members of the group said this was to show their bravery, dedication and courage. They said their connection was no different than those formed by fraternity brothers or Boy Scouts.

But Boy Scouts aren't routinely armed with weapons and fraternity brothers aren't responsible for upholding the law. We expect law enforcement officers will be held to a different standard, and, given the immense trust we place in them, that they will view gunfire as an absolute last resort - not something to be celebrated.

In light of this, we certainly wouldn't doubt if there was more to the practices of this group. Many times, victims of police brutality are afraid to come forward, fearing - often with good reason - that the retaliation would be swift and fierce.

Just two years ago, the agency fired six corrections deputies who had their own hand gang symbols and called themselves the "3000 boys." There were allegations that this group was racist and in fact targeted prisoners on this basis. However, the extent of their "brotherhood" wasn't discovered until they brawled at a holiday party and ended up punching a female officer in the face.

Continue reading "L.A. County Sheriff's Office to Fire Internal "Gang" Members" »