RashyNullPlanet

I received a response from the Dearborn Heights Police Department after my complaint about one of their officers stopping me for taking a picture of him and his patrol car. They sent it to me via email on Friday, March 21st, though the letter is dated March 18th.

I’ve been thinking about whether or not to pursue this any more, and haven’t yet decided what to do. I doubt the DHPD is going to change its ways, even if I were to hire an attorney and sue them for some thing or other. At this point, I really don’t want to spend a lot of time or money on this, however, at a minimum, I do want to make sure it’s documented in detail so I have a record of it, and maybe it will help the next person who’s wrongfully stopped by the officer.

Here’s the text of the response I received. It places blame squarely on me:

March 18, 2008
Mr. xxxxx,

I have been assigned to investigate your compliant against Officer xxxxx for his actions on March 13, 2008. I have read your complaint and interviewed Officer xxxxx. Your letter, as well as Officer xxxxx?s version of the incident, are virtually the same. After considering the facts, I have come to the following conclusion:
I feel that you exercised poor judgment in the manner in which you took Officer xxxxx?s photograph. A simple courteous request prior to the photographing would have been proper. Without knowing your intent, you created anxiety, fear, and uncertainty in the officer?s mind. I ask that you put yourself in the officer?s shoes. I don?t know your family situation, but how would you feel if a stranger took a photo of your wife or children in front of your house and then quickly drove away. I am sure that would be upsetting to you and your family without knowing the intentions, good or bad, of the stranger.

Also, the speed limit on Pelham is 40 mph. Officer xxxxx stated that you were speeding. You don?t dispute that. The traffic stop was lawful. It was reasonable for Officer xxxxx to ask you about the nature of the photograph during the stop, and advising you to ask permission in the future.

In regards to your 10 enumerated requests. I will address them briefly.

1. Officer xxxxx will not be apologizing to you.
2. Officer xxxxx will not be disciplined in this matter
3. The Officer?s name has been addressed
4. Refer to number #2. Nor do we make it a policy to disclose discipline meted out to complainants.
5. The city attorney was consulted in this matter.
6. No such document exists.
7. The Dearborn Heights Police Department does not have a policy on the photographing of its Officers. Nor do we plan on implementing one.
8. This complaint is not sustained
9. A video tape may be available if you still wish to acquire it. A FOIA request is necessary. You may do that at DHPD Records Bureau.
10. I can assure you that Officer xxxxx will not retaliate against you because of this incident.

Sincerely,
Lt. yyyyy
Shift Commander

www.dearbornheightspd.com

Via Lifehacker, the Ten Legal Commandments of Photography are very timely, considering my recent encounter with a cop who objected to my photographing his? patrol car in a 7-Eleven parking lot. This portion is especially relevant:

VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:

• accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
• bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
• industrial facilities, Superfund sites
• public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
• children, celebrities, law enforcement officers

The article at Photojojo references Oregon attorney Bert P. Krages, but I can’t imagine that laws governing photography in public places is much, or at all, different here in Michigan.

On my way to work most mornings I stop at a 7-Eleven to get some coffee. At least once a week, there is a Dearborn Heights cop there, reading the newspaper, and chatting with the employees. On most of my stops there, the cop is there when I arrive, and still there when I leave, usually three to five minutes later. On many occassions, I’ve taken calls in my car in the parking lot and noted that the cop remains there for quite some time. When it’s cold outside, the engine on his patrol car is usually running. Sometimes, there is more than one cop standing around reading the paper and the magazines.

This has been going on for at least several years, and several times over the past few years, I’ve emailed the chief of police and complained, and the cops’ lounging around stopped for a while, but always started again after a few months.

This morning, I used my cell phone to take a picture of the cop’s patrol car running, as usual, in the parking lot. He was leaving the store at the time and walking toward his car. When I drove out of the parking lot toward where I work, he followed me, driving so close to my car that I couldn’t see the front bumper of his car.

He stopped me and asked why I took a picture of him, and left me with instructions to ask permission before photographing police.

He was testy. He’ll probably be in a much worse mood after my letter to his chief, deputy chief, captain, the city’s mayor, and the entire city council filters down to him.

Radley Balko is absolutely correct: it?s essential that private citizens be permitted to photograph, videotape, or otherwise record on-duty officers. If I turn up as a corpse, this letter is probably why. I sent it to the cop’s top three bosses, the mayor of the city, the entire city council, and the city’s human resources department:

Dear Chief Gust, Deputy Chief Lazar, Captain Gavin, and Mayor Paletko,

This morning at approximately 8:30am I was wrongly stopped by one of your police officers.

I saw the officer at the 7-Eleven on the corner of Pelham and Van Born. He was standing behind the counter of the 7-Eleven when I went inside to buy a cup of coffee. As I was driving to the exit of the parking lot, I used my cell phone to take a picture of his running patrol vehicle, # 81, in the parking lot. I’ve attached the picture, which unfortunately, turned out quite blurry. The date & time stamp on the picture is 13-Mar-2008, 08:28am. I turned north onto Pelham from the 7-Eleven parking lot and a few seconds later, the officer followed me, tailgating my vehicle quite closely. He turned on his overhead lights near Pelham and Colgate. I signaled, turned right onto Colgate, and stopped on the right hand side of the road.

The officer stopped his patrol car behind my car, got out of his car, walked to my driver side window, and asked for my driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of vehicle insurance. I gave him the documents and asked him why he stopped me. The officer said that I was driving 43mph in a 40mph zone. Then he asked why I had taken a picture of him. I answered that I like to take pictures. He ordered me to show him the photo on my cell phone, so I did. The officer returned to his vehicle for a few minutes, then came back to my car, returned my license and papers, and told me to ask permission before taking photographs of police officers in the future. He did not write any citations against me. He then returned to his patrol car and drove away.

I have complained several times via email in the past several years about Dearborn Heights police officers lounging around that 7-Eleven. I fear that this officer’s actions may have been retaliation for those complaints. The actions of the officer were inappropriate, intimidating, and harassing. I drive on Pelham every day to get to work, and I will probably never again feel comfortable driving on Pelham or stopping at that 7-Eleven because of the officer’s actions. Even worse, the officer has demonstrated that he may be a potential liability for the Dearborn Heights Police Department, and the city.

I would like the following actions taken to ensure that such an incident doesn’t happen again, to me or anyone else:

1. I would like a written apology from the officer. Via email is sufficient.

2. The officer should be disciplined.

3. Inform me what the officer’s name is, so I have it for my records.

4. Inform me what discipline the officer receives, also for my records.

5. Forward a copy of this note to the city attorney who should advise the police department what Michigan law says regarding photography of police officers and their vehicles.

6. Send me a copy of the city attorney’s advice to the police department. Via email is sufficient.

7. Send me a copy of the police department’s policy regarding photography of police. Via email is sufficient. If no such policy exists, the police department should develop one. The policy should also be posted on the police department’s web site.

8. Copies of disciplinary action records and all correspondence regarding this incident should be placed in the officer’s personnel file.

9. Provide me with copies of the audio and video from the officer’s patrol car video camera and any audio captured by any microphone the officer was wearing. Via email as MP3 and/or MPG files is sufficient.

10. Guarantee me, in writing, that neither the officer nor anyone from the Dearborn Heights police department or any other Dearborn Heights city department will attempt any retaliation, intimidation, or harassment of me or my family because of this incident, this complaint, or anything that results from it. Please send this last item via US Postal Service. My mailing address can be gotten from the officer who stopped me and checked my driving record.

Thank you very much for your prompt and thorough attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Matt xxxxx

xxxxxxx, MI

Charley Hardman’s post from a few weeks ago, that was nuremberg, this is now, gets at what I’ve been saying for a long time now, and what should be obvious to anyone with even the smallest shred of principle and integrity: your job does not free you from your obligation to determine right from wrong and to act accordingly.

The implications of that are immense, and apply to everyone, from Adolph Eichmann, to the local dog monitor girl.

Now I know about two John Romeros: the software guy, and the whiny cop, so aptly paraphrased by Billy Beck.

Their similarity ends with their name.

Software Romero makes a living by engaging people on a voluntary basis. Cop Romero makes a living primarily by using force to deal with people. Software Romero creates games and sells them to willing buyers. Cop Romero imposes some peoples’ preferences on unwilling victims. Software Romero earns an income from voluntary customers. Cop Romero’s income is money confiscated from his neighbors.

Cop Romero could learn some valuable lessons from Software Romero.

Look at these two pictures and ask yourself what could have caused this woman’s injuries. What is not visible is that she has two broken teeth:

What was your first impression? Domestic violence? Pimp v. prostitute?

Now look at this picture:

See that foot-shaped stain on the floor on the far side of the woman? That’s part of a pool of blood. How much blood do you suppose that is? A pint? Maybe two? Angela Garbarino acquired those injuries while in the custody of police, specifically, while in the custody of the savage Wiley Willis. Look at that last picture. Why is the savage Wiley Willis touching Angela’s inner thigh?

Radley Balko linked to Angela Garbarino’s story earlier today. Make sure to watch the videos.

The ABC article linked by Radley claims “no one knows for sure what occurred.” That cannot be true. There are at least two people who know exactly what happened: Angela and Wiley. One of them is telling the truth. Wiley claims Angela suffered injury because she “fell”. Angela’s injuries speak for themselves.

It’s obvious to even a chimp missing a chromosome that Wiley beat the fuck out of Angela while the camera was off.

Black’s Law Dictionary says (for anyone relying on appeals to authority):

Accessory. Criminal law: Contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of a felonious offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participator, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the act or commission”

One who is not the chief actor in the offense, nor present at its performance, but in some way concerned therein, either before or after the act committed. One who aids, abets. commands, or counsels another in the commission of a crime.

Accessory after the fact. A person who, knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the felon, in order to enable him to escape from punishment or the like.

Accessory during the fact. One who stands by without interfering or giving such help as may be in his power to prevent the commission of a criminal offense.

There is no way around it: anyone who has first-hand knowledge of what Wiley did to Angela is an accessory, unless he testifies against Wiley.

That is precisely why there are almost no good cops. Almost every cop knows about some savagery another cop committed. By remaining silent, that “good” cop becomes an accessory to the savagery. A cop’s only hope for redemption is to call out the perpetrator.

Co-workers of Wiley: this means you.

Wendy’s friend Ted is right: that’s a difficult video to watch, especially if you understand that it could be an important woman in your life who’s next. The second part of the local news story is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRhyiXJ91CQ&NR=1

Hope Steffey can be heard repeatedly screaming, “Why are you doing this?”

The answer, which she’ll never get from her uniformed attackers: because they can.

…hear me roar.

Everything important about this has already been said.

Update: I was wrong. Billy makes another important point.