Police Misconduct Records Show California Police Officer Busting Sober Drivers For DUI

from the delayed-transparency dept

Not every law enforcement agency is refusing to comply with California's new transparency law. Effective January 1st, the law makes police misconduct and use of force records accessible to the public for the first time in the state's history.

The state's attorney general isn't happy. Neither are many of the state's law enforcement agencies. And the state's law enforcement unions are definitely opposed to the new transparency, not to mention the law's apparently retroactive reach. But while the unions are busy trying to keep the law from exposing historical misconduct records, some law enforcement agencies are quietly complying with both the letter and the intent of the law.

The Modesto Bee is one of the first beneficiaries of the new law. It has obtained misconduct records dating back to 2003 from the Modesto Police Department. The details contained in these are exactly the reason law enforcement unions are fighting so hard to keep these records out of the public's hands.

The Modesto Police Department since 2013 has fired five police officers who it claimed were dishonest, including one who allegedly made false reports in DUI arrests to another who allegedly defrauded the federal government out of nearly $10,000.

[...]

Modesto police also released records related to 52 instances dating to 2003 in which officers discharged firearms at someone or their use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury.

Oddly, the use of force records the Modesto PD had on hand have been retained long past the five-year destruction period -- something that suggests the PD sees some value in keeping these files intact. (This is bound to piss off the union representing MPD officers, though. Expect some sort of public condemnation, if not an actual lawsuit, from the union in the near future.)

The documents detail the sort of thing we've become accustomed to seeing in police departments: mainly, a lot of dishonesty. There are reports of an officer lying about a rape investigation, an officer covering up damage he caused to his squad car by failing to put it in park before exiting his vehicle, and another officer taking home nearly $10,000 in housing stipends by falsely claiming he lived in a more expensive neighborhood.

But probably the most egregious misconduct uncovered was engaged in by an officer who had received commendations and public praise by Mothers Against Drunk Driving for his DUI enforcement efforts. But the numbers he was racking up were too good to be true.

[The] problems included the officer’s body camera footage not supporting what he wrote in his reports, including writing that he observed signs of intoxication when none was present on the footage, and relying on an “odor of alcohol” for conducting field sobriety tests, but the suspects’ blood alcohol levels turned out to 0.00 percent. Internal affairs concluded the officer’s conduct was “often rude, belittling, abrupt and arrogant.”

The officer “stopped drivers without reasonable suspicion, based on nothing more than the fact they were leaving the parking lot of a bar. He mocked the drivers he pulled over, ... recorded evidence of impairment that did not objectively exist, and arrested them without probable cause.

Unfortunately, the report chalks all this up to the officer's "zeal" and refers to his repeated violations of drivers' rights as "a lack of fairness." Yeah, that's pretty much just exonerating with faint damnation. In reality, this was an abuse of the officer's power -- power granted to him by the citizens he's not supposed to be ringing up on bogus DUI charges.

This is just the tip of California law enforcement's ugly iceberg. What's seen here isn't some sort of anomaly. Every department has plenty of dirty laundry. They just can't keep it buried in the back of the closet anymore.

Filed Under: california, dui, foia, police misconduct, records


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 6:08pm

    It's gonna get ugly

    "They just can't keep it buried in the back of the closet anymore."

    That assumes they don't destroy 'it' (aka them) 'accidentally' first. I wonder how many accidents can be imagined...um...how many law enforcement agencies exist in California? That might answer that question. What is the penalty for the destruction of required records? Right...taxpayers pay the fines and the perpetrators get off scott-free.

    Then if records actually make it into the public purview they will be used to:

    1: Denigrate, though properly, officers testimony in court

    2: Generate lawsuits against departments and individual officers where there now exists evidence that was not available in the past. If the departments lose, the taxpayers get dinged again. If the officer looses, some justice might occur, but they don't have any kind of what is considered deep pockets, and might just quit and go work for a different force. That might not absolve them of any judgement, but it might make it more difficult to collect.

    3: Make law enforcement agencies much more careful about what they write down at all times. We know that they are required to record certain things (which might vary department to department, but state record keeping laws apply to all) so if it isn't in writing, then it isn't. Then someone might accuse someone of misconduct in the future and the department will look and legitimately say 'we have no record of that' because they just discussed it and never wrote it down. Oh, and those video recordings from individual officers and dash cams? There will be massive, and ongoing, and un-correctable issues with their various retention and backup schemes.

    4: ETC.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 5:56am

      Re: It's gonna get ugly

      1: Denigrate, though properly, officers testimony in court

      Only if the judge allows it. Many judges bend over backwards to protect "officer testimony".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Adelanto, 30 Mar 2019 @ 7:39am

      Re: NOT gonna get ugly

      yawn. nothing will change.

      dishonesty and corruption are inherent aspects of government police operations. The practical incentives promote it.

      It has been documented for over a century.
      Elected officials, judges, prosecutors, and most lawyers don't see it as any big problem ... and have consistently failed to even moderately reduce it.

      Police Chiefs and police supervisoprs see this stuff first hand every day -- and either ignore it or cover it up.

      Sure there are some honest cops -- but almost all look the other way and adhere to the Blue Wall of Silence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 7:49am

        Re: Re: NOT gonna get ugly

        Dishonesty and corruption are human nature, there is no way around it. Encouragement of bad traits is not good for anyone longterm, but the short term gains are hard to resist. The fact that is has always been this way is not a good reason to do nothing. Now, what might that something be?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Adelanto, 30 Mar 2019 @ 8:22am

          Re: NOT gonna get ugly

          @@@ "Now, what might that something be?"

          ... there are many possible actions to theoretically control police conduct -- but first you must get honest & diligent elected officials running the government.

          ... good luck on that -- getting honest politicians is much much tougher than getting honest cops.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: NOT gonna get ugly

        Departments bank on having honest cops on the force. It heralds good faith in court and gives them overall benefit of any doubt.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 3:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOT gonna get ugly

          Cops are just people. Many go into law enforcement because they have a military background and don't know what to do with themselves when they get out of the military; They bring that mindset to policing. Others go into law enforcement because it's a job that requires minimal training, the equivalent of less than 2 terms of college, and pays better than being a stockboy at a grocery store. But not much better.

          They're given mediocre pay, bad schedules, weapons, too much power and a lot of boredom. It's a recipe for disaster and a meal we've eaten way too many times. More openness and public oversight is probably the only thing that might help bring them back under control.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 29 Mar 2019 @ 8:24pm

    There is a reason it is referred to as "roadside gymnastics".

    It is meant to make you fail.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2019 @ 8:46pm

    Where's Poochie?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:08pm

    'Records? What records?'

    Unfortunately, the report chalks all this up to the officer's "zeal" and refers to his repeated violations of drivers' rights as "a lack of fairness."

    'Sure he broke the law, harassed innocent people, even arresting them, but you gotta love that go-getter attitude he had for abusing his power!'

    Yeah, that's pretty much just exonerating with faint damnation.

    Uh, no, that's not 'pretty much' exonerating him, that's seeing what he did and praising it, with not even a slap on the wrist.

    Every department has plenty of dirty laundry. They just can't keep it buried in the back of the closet anymore.

    They can however stonewall requests for it, or if that fails simply destroy it before it can be made public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Cvnk (profile), 29 Mar 2019 @ 11:53pm

    "Housing stipend"?

    Do some people get additional salary beyond their base pay to cover the cost of where they choose to live? Or is this referring to something else?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 30 Mar 2019 @ 6:26am

      Re: "Housing stipend"?

      Can't have police living (in the slums) with normal people - they might be a-feared for their lives! Give them more money so they can live with the beautiful people who are their real responsibility.

      Where's the damn strikethrough?!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 5:46pm

        Re: Re: "Housing stipend"?

        Can't have police living (in the slums) with normal people - they might be a-feared for their lives!

        If that's the justification, I'm all for it. Normal people are safer when officers don't fear for their lives.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 5:09am

          Re: Re: Re: "Housing stipend"?

          "when officers don't fear for their lives"

          When might that be?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JoeCool (profile), 31 Mar 2019 @ 10:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Housing stipend"?

            Good point. Today's cops seemed to be in mortal terror when apprehending a single unarmed teen while surrounded by more than a dozen fellow officers, all with drawn firearms of all sorts.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Mar 2019 @ 11:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Housing stipend"?

              Or from Chihuahua's that escaped their fence in yard to play with the dog across the street.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 1:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Housing stipend"?

              Good point. Bbut cops now adays can't wait to shoot something more that a cardboard cut-out. Most of them are frustrated at home.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 1:45am

    as someone with 7 dui's , do you want an opinion?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2019 @ 2:31am

      Re:

      as you are someone with 7 dui's, I'm surprised you asked and didn't just give us your opinion, at least three times

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 5:54am

    That's not the officer's fault!

    problems included the officer’s body camera footage not supporting what he wrote in his reports..

    More of those damn lying cameras!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 3:31pm

      Re: That's not the officer's fault!

      You'd think technology could fix those damn cameras and the fake, photoshopped images they capture.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2019 @ 7:09am

    "including writing that he observed signs of intoxication when none was present on the footage, and relying on an “odor of alcohol” for conducting field sobriety tests,"

    Must've been a graduate from the school of impairment detection, they can tell when you are impaired without the use of instrumentation.
    lol ... sure they can

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bobvious, 30 Mar 2019 @ 4:33pm

      Re: field sobriety tests

      Especially if you're downwind from a brewery at the time of the "traffic stop".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        TripMN, 30 Mar 2019 @ 6:44pm

        Re: Re: field sobriety tests

        Have you ever been downwind of a brewery? They do not smell like beer whatsoever. The smell is of grain and hops, but not beer.

        So saying that someone smells like beer because they are downwind of a brewery makes about as much sense as saying they smell like cheese because they are downwind of a cow pasture.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Bobvious, 30 Mar 2019 @ 11:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: field sobriety tests

          Downwind many times. The issue is not what the brewery ACTUALLY smells like, but that the use of "instrumentation" is not required to detect "inebriation", even through a closed window and at a great distance. Scientists just haven't yet made a device that can measure alcohol in the bloodstream as accurately as human gutfeelings, especially those that are honed to perfection at the Police Academy.

          Remember also, driving too correctly is a sign of impairment, as is not driving correctly at all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2019 @ 12:57pm

    Someone should send some of those cops down to Antarctica to bust some "so-called" scientists who are curious as to why the glaciers are retreating.. so they are setting off explosions under the glaciers?!?!!?! What the Fuck is wrong with that picture?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.