Another Resident Detained by Police for Taking Pictures
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Tuesday, 12 July 2011 13:02
A photo taken by Sander Roscoe Wolff on June 30 at Edgington Oil Company before he was detained.
6:01pm | June 30 was a beautiful summer Thursday. Just the kind of day that might tempt a photographer out to a refinery to capture some snaps of well illuminated rust and metal corrosion, colors that don't quite exist in the natural world.
But in Long Beach lately, it seems this is just the kind of action that will result in police detention.
For at least the second time in a month, police in Long Beach have detained a resident for the mere fact of taking pictures that are perfectly legal to take.
At a little before 10 a.m. on June 30, Sander Roscoe Wolff says he was on the south side of Artesia Boulevard taking photographs of the Edgington Oil Company when Officer Asif Kahn rolled up in a Long Beach Police Department patrol unit.
Wolff said that Kahn stated he had received a call that Wolff was taking pictures of the refinery. Wolff explained to Kahn that he was photographing the refinery for artistic reasons.
"I guess he had [been] observing me for at least a few minutes," recounts Wolff, "because he said, 'I saw you take a picture of [some nearby flora.] I saw you take a picture across the street.'"
Because he found Kahn's demeanor to be low-key and even friendly, Wolff was surprised when Kahn asked for Wolff's driver's license. "I asked him if I had to show him my driver's license," says Wolff. "He said 'yes.' And at that point I did feel detained. Because if he was demanding that I identify myself, then I couldn't just walk away."
Wolff says Kahn apparently ran a check on Wolff's driver's license, then came back and said that everything was okay. "He said because of Homeland Security and new laws, [the police] have the authority to ask for my driver's license and run it when they feel that there's cause."
Wolff also says Kahn made it clear that Wolff was welcome to remain and continue to take pictures.
So why the hassle, as friendly as it might have otherwise been? At center stage here may be the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 establishment of policy "to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism"1 (p. 39).
Central to this policy is the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), "a report used to document any reported or observed activity, or any criminal act or attempted criminal act, which an officer believes may reveal a nexus to foreign or domestic terrorism" (p. 39).
Included among "[i]ncidents which shall be reported on a SAR" is "Tak[ing] pictures or video footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.)" (p. 40).
Although Special Order No. 11 applies only to the LAPD, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out, "Rather than criticize the LAPD efforts, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the LAPD program 'should be a national model.' Not surprisingly, in June 2008 the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security teamed with the Major City [sic] Chiefs Association to issue a report recommending expanding the LAPD SAR program to other U.S. cities."2
Wolff claims he has no intention of filing a complaint or taking any other action regarding his detainment, but that he is interested in further discussion of the issues underlying what transpired.
For Part 2 of this story, I will report on my efforts to continue this discussion by reaching out to the LBPD in general and Kahn in particular; to the City Attorney's Office; and to Councilman Steve Neal, in whose Ninth District Wolff found himself detained.
Editor’s note: Sander Roscoe Wolff is a Long Beach Post columnist.
Footnotes
1Special Order No. 11 appears as Appendix B of "Findings and Recommendations of the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Support and Implementation Project," a report issued jointly by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association (of with Long Beach is a member city). Page numbers cited refer to this report, which can be viewed at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/mccarecommendation-06132008.pdf.
2See http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf.
Forever cops have been allowed to pull you over and ask for your ID if a simple tail light isn't working.
He "felt" detained?!
The world is, in fact, an extremely dangerous place and there are many people in the world who desire to do us (America) harm.
Part of the reason that we do not experience levels of terrorism in the US comparable to many other nations in the world is because some in our society recognize the true nature of the threat of terrorism and work tirelessly to deter and combat it.
Greggory is a fine writer and he is extremely adept at influencing and manipulating the perceptions of others by choosing his words very carefully.
For example, Greggory claims that it is the kind of action Sander was engaging in that "tempts police out to detain photographers." But this really isn't the case. Police officers, and particularly patrol oriented police officers, see people photographing all sorts of things all the time (including the police themselves) and absent additional indicators that the activity is out of the ordinary or potentially threatening, they barely take any notice.
What "tempted" police out in this case was someone ELSE who called and reported Sander's activities. Someone ELSE apparently thought what Sander was doing looked suspicious and called the police and asked them to investigate. A call for service was entered, just as more than a thousand OTHER police calls for service are entered each day in Long Beach, and Off. Khan was eventually dispatched to assess. This he did, first by making observations of his own and then contacting Sander directly. From what Sander reports, Off. Khan conducted his assessment in a "low key and even friendly" manner.
In other words. Off. Khan did what we pay him to do and, by all objective standards, seems to have done it well. But Greggory does not choose to offer this opinion, because his focus seems to be upon whether or not Sander *should* have been detained, and whether or not he *should* have been required to identify himself to Off. Khan.
My question, however, is why should Sander *not* have been briefly detained and identified? He was in a public place or, at the very least, in public view, and someone reported him as suspicious. What did Sander truly lose in disclosing his identity to Off. Khan? Not a single bloody thing. Not his security, not his dignity, not even his personal freedom or individual liberty.
And what did the community gain from Sander's cooperation? The comfort of knowing that on that date, at that time, it was proven that no one was conducting hostile surveillance of an active oil refinery that is no doubt considered a key resource and part of the city's critical infrastructure and, so, worthy of special attention and protection.
This is also the case with all government buildings such as, say, county court houses.
As Greggory accurately points out, LAPD's Special Order 11 only applies to LAPD. LBPD has its own policies and procedures and I look forward to the second part of Greggory's story where, it is hoped, he will report upon those policies and procedures specific to LBPD and whether or not Off. Khan abided by them.
individuals with ill intent. The border patrol and other government agencies have, with reasonable cause, stopped individuals who are identifying and photographing such critical facilities and transmitting the information to other countries. I believe Sander, who takes a wide variety of photographs should get in touch with reality and understand we live in precarious times. He was treated gently and properly and should stop making mountains out of molehills.
Thank God that we have Police to stop, question and identiy situations that may be a threat to our public safety.
Did the officer ask for a driver's license specifically or did he ask for ID? If the photographer had been under sixteen would the officer have asked for a school ID? If so what would have happened if the kid had said he did not have his school ID on him?
If you are not going to arrest someone, leave them be.
1) Was Wolff there on purpose to see if he would be questioned or was he really innocently taking pictures?
2) If this officer did absolutely nothing out of line and treated him with the utmost respect, why is this is even a story? Why even mention you don't plan on filing a complaint? A complaint for what??? The officer had every right to do what he did.
3) Who wrote this headline? Why was it written the way it was? This was not simply some anonymous person, this "resident" is one of your contributors. There was a certain intent with this headline, what was it?
4) Why use the word "hassle"? Where was he "hassled"?
This entire thing simply reeks of disingenuous behavior by the LB Post.
I come from a family Of cops and military. I hate it when people try to give cops who don't deserve it a bad wrap. If the officer cuffed the guy and stole his film? That's a story. If he just checks to make sure no ones trying to blow up long Beach? Either praise him or leave the whole thing in obscurity.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paramount+%2F+Artesia,+Long+Beach,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.874611,-118.16423&spn=0.001748,0.004128&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=54.005807,135.263672&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.874611,-118.164345&panoid=0Cm3yQnBqOfnCXa1Lhl0Lg&cbp=12,137.74,,0,4.27
If you can view this page, you will clearly see what I mean. Nobody would risk public exposure if they had bad intentions. Thus, no reasonable suspicion is really possible. The fact that I was there with a camera at all automatically proves that I have no ill intent and, as such, need not be stopped or questioned by anyone.
As a wise man once said, anyone who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.
Are you all also consistent with the Arizona law where police is asking for ID and run background check on those they 'ask for ID' too?
All photographers and civilians should be very aware of their civil rights and should not permit them to be violated.
Here's a link to a free "Photographer's Rights" pdf document.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Given all of the above, people have every reason to be nervous about and suspicious of others taking pictures of oil refineries anywhere in CONUS, including Long Beach. Those people likewise have every right to call the police and ask them to look into activity that they deem to be suspicious.
The police have every right and, indeed, a sworn duty to respond to calls for service of suspicious activity in our community and to investigate people and circumstances that have been reported to them.
Sander was in no way harmed by being asked to identify himself or by complying with the request that he do so. On balance, our community is far safer because we have concerned citizens willing to report suspicious behavior and professional police offers willing to take their sworn duties so seriously and deligently investigate such reports.
Maintaining our personal liberties and individual freedoms is critical to the health and well-being of our free and open society. One of the best ways we can all contribute to those efforts is to remember that we are, indeed, at war against a declared enemy who very much desires to destroy our society and the freedoms and liberties some of us take so very much for granted.
We must all remain vigilant. And we must avoid being dismissive of the very real, and very many, threats our nation faces.
There is much to be found on the internet that can assist terrorists in planning an attack. But like any other information source, these have their limits. I can assure you that virtually every terrorist attack or attempted attack that I have studied -and I have studied hundreds- has involved a considerable amount of direct, in-person surveillance, whether by one person or more, and on multiple occasions.
Your assertion that "anyone taking pictures of such things clearly is NOT a potential terrorist and, thus, NOT suspicious" is one of the most naive and potentially dangerous assumptions a person can possibly develop or believe, in this context, Sander. This assumption is *not* supported by the facts. This assumption has been disproven in virtually every significant terrorist attack the US has ever suffered, whether at home or abroad.
*Please* disabuse yourself of such dangerous and potentially deadly assumptions, Sander. In this I can assure you that you most certainly do *not* know whereof you speak.
Our unalienable rights are, indeed, God-granted (e.g. Creator-endowed). I believe this and so did those who wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
All we did, as a people possessed of free will and the right of self-determination, was to accept these rights and liberties and secure them unto ourselves. Since that time we have struggled mightily to support and defend these rights and liberties.
I do not desire to live in what is commonly known as a police state, wherein no reasonable suspicion is required for a detention and no probable cause or exigent circumstance is required for an arrest.
What happened to you, Sander, is not a symptom of that sort of society but, rather, one in which freedom and liberty is a cornerstone and the willing cooperation of citizens like you to reasonable and legitimate law enforcement inquiries like Off. Khan's, are *both* essential.
Again, neither you, nor Greggory, nor our community, society or nation, were to any degree harmed by this event or the professional manner in which Off. Khan chose to handle it.
I, for one, am VERY pleased that someone was aware enough to notice you and to be concerned enough to report their observations to the proper authorities. I am VERY pleased that Off. Khan was dispatched in a timely manner and that he took the time to make observations of his own before he contacted you. I am VERY pleased that Khan remained low key, friendly, and professional while doing the sometimes very difficult work our community compensates him to do, and I am VERY pleased that once he was satisfied that you did not represent any sort of threat to the facility, that he made it clear that you were free to remain and continue taking your pictures.
In a simpler, more halcyon, day during which we are not at war with enemies who specifically target critical infrastructure and key resources (among other things) no one may have noticed what you were doing. In such a day, no one would likely have called the police. In such a day no police offier would have been sent to investigate and may not have chosen to personally contact you if he or she had been. In such a day it may not have occurred to him or her to ask you who you were and to offer proof of your indentity or to check to make sure you had no warrants for your arrest or other sorts of wants.
But that day is unfortunately not this day. In this day, for better or worse, we *are* at war...and we all must remain more vigilant.
I wonder, did you thank Off. Khan for doing what he could to help protect our community in this way, Sander?
If not, I really think you should have.
But I'll follow you as you re-focus and further restrict your comments.
You claim that "the officer did not have any reasonable suspicion." How do you know this? He may, in fact, have had a good deal of reasonable suspicion. He simply may not have articulated each aspect of his suspicions to you. Nor is he required to.
The inferences he made to "Homeland Security" and "new laws" should have provided you with a glimpse of but a part of the suspicions he may have developed, and why they may, in fact, have been quite reasonable.
The first aspect of his potential suspicions could have had to do with the fact that he was sent to assess your activities in the first place, how that came about, and why.
The second could have had to do with the fact that he personally observed you for a time and that whatever it was he saw seemed to confirm (or at least to not dismiss) the initial suspicions he may have developed.
The third could have been all of the context I have already described concerning terrorism, the manner in which terrorist attacks are planned, and the critical facilities that terrorists sometimes target.
All of that alone could *easily* serve to cause the "reasonable officer" to ask you to identify yourself to his satisfaction and to make sure you had no warrants for your arrest or other wants.
And there could well have been other factors in play that neither you nor Greggory may have been aware of and, so, have not mentioned here.
But, Sander, do you not feel that a reasonable and more appropriate response to your apparent concerns would have been to request that a supervisor respond so you could discuss the matter with him or her at that time? Did you do so? If not, why not?
How about filing a formal complaint with LBPD or the CPCC? You have the right to do that, particularly where you feel an officer may have violated the law or where you believe his training may be deficient. Did you file a complaint? If not, why not?
You seem to be concerned that Off. Khan's actions could be "potentially illegal" and that "LBPDs training system should be amended." The best way for you, as a private citizen, to make sure that your concerns are properly investigated and addressed is to put your concerns on record by filing a formal complaint...not relating your experiences to a fellow columnist so he could recount them, second-hand, here.
I very much look forward to the balance of Greggory's article.
This entire thing doesn't pass the so-called smell test, from the headline to the incident itself to the way it was presented here. It raises several questions.
1) Was Wolff there on purpose to see if he would be questioned or was he really innocently taking pictures?
2) If this officer did absolutely nothing out of line and treated him with the utmost respect, why is this is even a story? Why even mention you don't plan on filing a complaint? A complaint for what??? The officer had every right to do what he did.
3) Who wrote this headline? Why was it written the way it was? This was not simply some anonymous person, this "resident" is one of your contributors. There was a certain intent with this headline, what was it?
4) Why use the word "hassle"? Where was he "hassled"?
This entire thing simply reeks of disingenuous behavior by the LB Post.
Moreover, there's is no such thing as "feeling detained" means you were detained. There's just no legal basis for it. You asked if you had to provide ID. The officer correctly responded "yes", therefore, you're obligated to remain until he tells you you're free to leave. That's being detained, but that also is perfectly acceptable under the law, especially Terry and its progeny. Your insistence that you were "feeling detained" continues to infer that you were illegally prevented from your freedom of movement. That just isn't the case here. And, in most stops on the street if a person has enough presence of mind to immediately ask if they can go and they continue to remain voluntarily, the detention isn't illegal.
Since you seem to be fond of citing Terry, Terry would even have allowed the officer to pat you down, something he didn't do.
We live in a different world now Sander, you know that. Eventually, the odds are there will be a terrorism attack of some sort here in Southern California. Whether middle-aged types like myself will be around to see it is another matter, but threats to our country are evolving. Sentiments like Franklin's are nice, but now and again, even and especially a forward thinker like Franklin would admit those same sentiments are adaptable and subject to change.
So again, you all are making something out of nothing here. Moore got stopped in front of the L.B. Courthouse a while back and apparently can't seem to let go of it. Now this "story", which frankly, appears to be bogus as hell, because, among other reasons, it's too much of a coincidence. Let it go.
can get you detained! And IF so
we live in a Police State.
Comments:
But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of drawing conclusions over an episode people know very little about, even those who think they do.
Sander, I, for one, do not doubt that you felt fear during your encounter with Off. Khan. I simply disagree that there was any just cause for you to do so. But to comment as you did here...to speak so flippantly about such a tragic event like Zerby...that, sir, is despicable. It is utterly beneath you, or should be. I have come to expect such detestably insulting comments from people like Mr. Ruehle, but not from you.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else yet has a complete understanding or appreciation of all of the events surrounding Zerby. To speak so superficially of that terrible and complicated incident serves no constructive purpose.
You go too far this time, Sander. Too far.
Second- it's also sadly obvious you're feeling backed into a corner here- derailing this by injecting the Zerby case (pathetic, insulting and shameless of you) and then correcting somebody's grammar? Please, let's not go down that road in a forum provided by the Long Beach Post. Pot, meet kettle.
Sander, you have once again offered an *opinion* as fact and then chosen to argue with others from your own faulty premise.
I submit that based upon what you have related here, you cannot *possibly* know whether or not Off. Khan had developed sufficient reasonable suspicion to lawfully detain you.
You certainly *could* have gained that knowledge but, again according to the information you have offered here, you never even bothered to ask him. Perhaps you should have.
If Off. Khan refused to explain, perhaps you should have requested a supervisor and then asked him or her to explain what Off. Khan either could not or would not.
Absent (or even in addition to) that you could and should have filed a formal complaint and gotten your concerns in this area on record and, in so doing, required the PD to investigate your concerns.
There exists an entire police division whose *sole purpose* is to investigate allegations of police employee misconduct. There exists an entire Chartered City Commission that has that same mission and that answers directly to the City Manager, rather than the Chief.
Did you contact either of these? If not, why not? As a member of this community you had a right (some might say a civic responsibility) to file a formal complaint in this incident. But instead you seem to have preferred to try and convict Off. Khan here, in the "court of public opinion", where he and the department have far less ability to either explain, investigate, or answer your concerns and charges.
How very convenient for you.
You imply that the people entrusted to uphold the law in Long Beach "regularly choose to abuse it" and that, as a direct result of this, fear *of* LBPD has now replaced trust *in* them.
But, Sander, your implication is utterly lacking in factual foundation. Certainly, some police employees occasionally commit misconduct. This is an undeniable fact. But the instances in which this occurs represent but a tiny *fraction* of the total and immense volume of police activity in Long Beach. The vast majority of police employees are competent and consummate professionals and the vast majority of police activity in Long Beach is conducted morally, ethically, and either meets or exceeds all state-established standards of professional conduct.
But you have chosen to ignore these facts.
Instead, just like the despicable Mr. Ruehle, you have now chosen to judge LBPD according to the clear *exception* of unethical and unlawful conduct, rather than the clear and quantifiable *rule* of professional and lawful conduct.
And just like the despicable Mr. Ruehle, you have now chosen to speak flippantly, superficially, and with considerable dishonor about a recent and extremely tragic officer involved shooting that, as of this writing, remains under investigation.
Congratulations, Sander. You have now descended to the despicable rhetorical depths of people like Mr. Ruehle.
How very proud of yourself you must be!
I didn't ask to speak with a supervisor because, at the time of the interaction, my sole purpose was to end the exchange as quickly as possible. I had a reasonable suspicion that the officer's request to see my driver's license was out of line, but I was completely unfamiliar with the rules related to 'Terry' stops and 'reasonable suspicion.' In fact, I didn't even know the term "Terry Stop" until I spoke with a friend of mine, an attorney with far more knowledge than I about issues related to civil liberties, some hours later.
As to filing a complaint: First, Greggory told me that the LBPD was concerned that I might file one and, if I did, they might not be willing to speak with him about the incident. That's why he included my statement that I had no plans to file a complaint. I felt that his efforts to engage with the City Prosecutor, the City Attorney, and the Chief of Police were far more valuable than my filing a complaint.
Also, knowing something of the CPCC, I felt that they would be of little use. With the head of the entity hand picked by the Chief, from his own staff, and with its investigatory staff nearly eliminated, it has become nothing more than a rubber stamping entity of the PDs internal affairs office.
While you may think that the best way to affect change in the PD is to follow their own complaint procedures, I've really seen no evidence to support this belief. My belief is that, by having an open and public dialog about this issue, our elected leaders and the citizens they represent may become more fully engaged, and demand more accountability from the municipal entities that serve them. That may yet prove to be naive. I hope not.
Mike, if mocking someone's fears, and calling them names, is "constructive criticism," then I've been getting it wrong for years.
Crum, what kind of law do you practice?
And you really do not see a problem with this? With deliberately declining to file a formal complaint so as to manipulate the reporting and susbsequent follow up investigation of an encounter with a police officer?
As I have said, I look forward to reading the balance of this story, and to see whether the other officials and experts interviewed feel Off. Khan violated any law, policy, or procedure. Whatever else we learn here and whatever explanations may be offered, Off. Khan has now been deprived of *his* right to due process to no less a degree than you apparently feel *you* were deprived of your right to be secure in your person and papers.
The clear difference, of course, is that you have a very articulate colleague willing to investigate outside normal channels for you and then to report his findings in the light *most* favorable to you and *least* favorable to Off. Khan. Meanwhile Off. Khan does not have access to the same recourse where you are concerned.
Yes, vey fair minded of you.
However this story develops, Sander, I maintain that your flippant resorting to derrogatory references to Zerby (a tragic incident still under investigation) was entirely unwarranted and an utterly despicable rhetorical tactic. Your comments in that area served no constructive purpose and only served to cast aspersions upon officers you do not know and for actions you do not have all of the facts surrounding.
You should feel considerable personal shame for resorting to that insulting reference, Sander. If you do not, you might consider doing some very serious soul searching.
Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the vast majority of LBPD employees are dedicated professionals who do not commit misconduct.
Whenever misconduct does occur it should be properly documented, thoroughly investigated and, where proven, should be swiftly and appropriately punished. But that cannot rightly happen in this case, Sander. Because rather than choosing to properly document the incident by filing an official complaint, you have instead chosen to manipulate the story to your own best benefit.
Congratulations.
'I simply desire that the discussions in which I choose to participate remain, meaningful, constructive, productive, courteous, respectful and factual. The degree to which a discussion departs from those is usually the degree to which I sometimes take exception.'
http://greaterlongbeach.com/13/07/2011/what-is-the-procedure-for-recalling-an-lb-city-council-member
Above direct quote from John Greet:
'And just like the despicable Mr. Ruehle, you have now chosen to speak flippantly, superficially, and with considerable dishonor.'
Apparently Greet's standard for courteousness and respectfullness applies to everyone else but himself. What a hypocrite.
You've lost all of what little credibility the Post had anyway, what with the injection of Zerby and the obvious intent of the Post to create a story where none exists. The entire episode has been a farce. No wonder no one gets paid around here. See you around.
You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.
"Great going Moore. Now Councilwoman Lowenthal is going to create an ordinance to BAN cameras in public areas, just like her ordinances to BAN plastic bags, BAN smoking at bus stops and BAN cats without rabies shots."
http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11882
It's funny how when eight LASO deputies surround Greg at the court house it's his fault. Poor Mike Ruehle is upset with LBPD because of his arrest for driving drunk and speeding down second street. Some community activist huh. (snicker)
'You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.'
This comment follows Long Beach Police Officer John Greet's claim that he still continues to carry a gun even though he is recently retired. Exact quote from John B. Greet:
'I do sometimes still carry a gun, High, and quite lawfully'
http://greaterlongbeach.com/06/07/2011/2471/comment-page-1#comment-5243
Are Greet's comments meant to threaten me? Does ex-cop John Greet carry a throw-down hose nozzle with his gun? Do I need to be in fear for my life from this Long Beach gun carrying ex-cop?
Ironically, do I need to report Greet to the police?
This is why this particular approach to reporting this incident (and incidents like it) is predominantly manipulative. Because in this way you and Greggory can present the facts and other information in a manner most favorable to yourself and completely omit or downplay any information that might serve to mitigate your opinion.
This is not an objective approach by any stretch of anyone's imagination.
You effectively deny Off. Khan his own right to due process and an opportunity to answer your inferences of misconduct. I submit that this approach is unjust, biased and extremely prejudicial.
You infer that our city's own various established procedures for placing misconduct allegations on the record is, itself, biased or otherwise corrupt. Then I think the proper response would be to seek to change those procedures so that they might become less so. These procedures have been established by people who have been appointed by people we, in turn, elect to represent us. These representatives supposedly monitor these procedures and their results to assure that they meet all legal requirements and best serve the people of Long Beach.
The results of these procedures are subject to review and close scrutiny by those we have elected to represnt us in government. If you question the quality of the results of these procedures, then perhaps you should question the quality of your elected representatives.
Please specify precisely where in CLB or LBPD policy you feel employees are granted permission to abuse their authority. Cite the specific Article or Section of the Charter, the Municipal Code or the Department Manual or Training Bulletins that authorize or even encourage such a nonsensical thing. You suggest that abuse occurs "through policy." Fine, specifiy where, exactly, we can find such an authorization in policy.
BTW, you really do not know, for a fact, that the entire encounter was *not* recorded. Off. Khan may very well have recorded it himself. Many officers routinely audio-record their field contacts and for just this reason, to be able to provide an objectively verifiable record of a contact in the event that it results in an allegation of misconduct. As a police supervisor I always *encouraged* this practice. Because eight times out of 10, whatever the complainant *asserts* happened is not a completely accurate portrayal of the way things actually transpired.
Had you filed a formal complaint, Sander, and if there were a recording of the contact, the transcript of the recording could have been entered into the record and included in the investigation. Absent a properly filed complaint, however, that recording (if it exists) will now likely never come to light. Too bad. Particularly if your portrayal of the contact is an accurate one. But now we will not be able to have access to such an objective record even if it does exist. Nice going!
As to Zerby. I maintain that your decision to reference that incident here, in the manner that you did, was utterly despicable. You can feel all the fear you like about anything you like, Sander. But fear is most often fear of the unknown. And the amount of things most of us actually *know* about that tragic incident is, at this point, really quite small. So to toss out a desparaging comment like that in so flippant a manner does a very great disservice and insult to every single professional and ethical cop working for us here in Long Beach. With such a comment you paint them all with the same broad, superficial, and highly ignorant brush.
As mentioned, I have come to expect such despicable rhetorical tactics from some in our community, but not from you.
I very much look forward to the balance of this story.
"The comfort of knowing that on that date, at that time, it was proven that no one was conducting hostile surveillance of an active oil refinery that is no doubt considered a key resource and part of the city's critical infrastructure and, so, worthy of special attention and protection.
This is also the case with all government buildings such as, say, county court houses."
Interesting.
I am a professional photographer who specializes in stock images of public architecture, primarily state capitols and county courthouses. I have photographed hundreds upon hundreds of courthouses across the country. You can view my subversive collection of courthouse photography here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capitolshotsphotography/collections/72157608456380158/
So, in your perfect world, would I have been questioned and possibly detained each and every time I was photographing one of these buildings, given how inherently suspicious an activity it is?
I'm reading that you are, or were, a police officer. I'm guessing you must have received your training in the old USSR. I remember reading many a travel story of people visiting the USSR during the days of communism and being admonished to put away cameras when attempting to take photographs of publicly-viewable buildings. Thank God that doesn't happen in the USA, I thought, where we have freedom.
I guess John B. Greet wishes were were more like the communist Soviet Union after all.
If you would like to have a mature discussion about what I believe and why, then approach me with the very same respect and courtesy that I have, in turn, offered you.
If you find that you are incapable or unwilling to engage with me in that more mature and intellectually honest manner, then you are certainly free to continue to offer insults and make all the erroneous assumptions you like.
Unfortunately that cannot happen if no one files a formal complaint.
I am still waiting for you to support your assertion that there has been example after example of the LBPD's abuse of its authority, not by one bad actor, but through policy. I am still waiting for you to specify precisely where in CLB or LBPD policy you feel employees are granted permission to abuse their authorityand to cite the specific Article or Section of the Charter, the Municipal Code or the Department Manual or Training Bulletins that authorize or even encourage such a nonsensical thing.
And I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the manner in which you injected Zerby here was despicable, insulting and inconsiderate.
As you know, the Critical Mass incident last October was, in my mind, a violation of the public trust, and a clear example of selective enforcement, driven by both the Chief and City Manager. There were no citizen complaints that led officers to show up prior to the event. It was a decision made at the top to forcefully stop and cite residents and visitors who who, except for the time of day and the name of the ride, did nothing differently than many of the other group rides that take place regularly in the City.
Selective enforcement is an abuse of power.
Prior to the City Council revoking the bike registration requirement, it was common practice by police to stop cyclists, but they'd only stop cyclists who rode certain kinds of bikes, or who fit a certain profile. This is a story I've heard again and again from riders in Long Beach.
Now, without the registration requirement, it is much harder for officers to stop bikes, thankfully.
Of course, there are the numerous officer involved shootings in the last year, many of which have been widely reported on. In municipalities where accountability rules over authority, none of these problems occur.
When every other City department has been forced to tighten their belts, the PD's budget remains steady, yet they currently have 200 fewer officers than they're funded for. Rather than return these funds to the General Fund, or use them to fund security infrastructure, the Chief is demanding that businesses seeking entertainment permits invest in internet-connected night vision digital video surveillance systems. The list goes on and on.
As for the complaint issue, I already explained why I said I wasn't going to file one. You may not like my answer, but you already have it.
You and I both know that the laws as written are not the laws as enforced. Officers constantly pick and choose which offenses to deal with, and which to ignore.
As for the municipal code, well... you may know that the City Attorney's office just recently took a case all the way to the US Supreme Court, and lost. The case relates to Special Events permitting, which was found to be unconstitutional because... Wait for it... there was too much leeway for municipal leaders to favor some groups and restrict others. I am hoping that the new code is now complete. Rest assured it will be scrutinized.
I've also heard reports of City officials revoking Entertainment permits unilaterally, even though only the City Council has the authority to do so.
There's the rather famous story of City officials boycotting local businesses because the owners demanded accountability, and spoke out against municipal policies.
John, the stories go on and on.
So, you can choose to believe what you believe, and I'll choose to believe what I believe. I trust that, having been made aware of my claims, you've contacted the people at the LBPD and let them know about my concerns. As a good citizen, you would do no less. I thank you for that.
In your mind there seems to be some connections between those two incidents and perhaps there are, but here is one connection you seem to have conveniently overlooked: Every single Critical Mass rider who was detained and cited received reasonable access to due process. Whether they availed themselves of it or not, each cyclist who was cited had an opportunity to stand before duly-appointed authority, answer the charge(s) against them, and plead his or her case. This is a courtesy and a right which you would apparently see effectively denied to Off. Khan. Now, the only way Off. Khan can receive due process related to your allegations is if the department administration opens it's own official investigation.
Talk about being "selective", Sander.
Speaking of selective enforcement, there are many legitimate and necessary reasons that this practice sometimes occurs. I suspect that whenever this practice benefits you or yours, you are quite comfortable with it and do not consider it to be an "abuse of power" (e.g. whenever you or yours are simply advised, rather than cited, for a traffic violation) and that you only complain when you feel it does not benefit you or yours (e.g. Critical Mass.) That is another sort of selectivity, Sander. It is called selective outrage, and I would suggest that yours does not serve to support your case, here, very well at all.
Long Beach's former bicycle registration statute was enacted by duly-elected Council representatives through the legal process of advice and consent. When it later seemed fitting to other duly-elected representatives to abolish that statute, they did so, and through the same legal process. This is not an example of an "abuse of power", but of true local government "accountability" to the prevailing sentiments of the community it serves.
While that law was on the books, however, and according to your own alleged logic, the PD *should* have enforced it in the case of the Critical Mass incident. For the PD to *not* have done so would have been an example of that "selective enforcement" you so despise and, so, an "abuse of power," right? You claim that there are other bicycling groups that were/are not subject to that sort of enforcement. Fine, but that is an argument *for* enforcement in those cases, not *against* enforcement in the case of Critical Mass.
Despite that I have now asked you, twice, to cite sections in current law and policy that require or enable LBPD officers to abuse their authority, you have consistently failed to do so. One can only reasonably conclude, then, that you cannot support your contention in this area with any factual references.
LBPD's budget has been trimmed right along with every other department's. Positions have been cut, academies deferred, services curtailed, business desks closed, furloughs imposed, and *many* other cost-saving measures applied. If you fail to recognize this truth, then you simply have not been paying attention.
But, as you say, you will "believe what you choose," whether or not your beliefs are supported by facts.
I have not and will not be contacting anyone at LBPD about this story. My comments here are those of a private citizen and in no way represent the department or its policies. I am no longer a member of that department and I have no standing upon which to bring this to the attention of anyone there. I have no direct knowledge of the incident you and Greggory have recounted here, so I will leave the second-hand reporting and opinion manipulation to Greggory.
Given your own version of this incident (conveniently the only one we have access to), the only "good citizen" non-police department employee who *could* have put the department on official notice of this incident (by filing a complaint) was you, and you have admittedly and voluntarily abdicated your right (and responsibility) to do so. I find that very unfortunate.
I look forward to the rest of this story and I still hope that you will eventually admit (even privately) that the manner of your reference to Zerby in this string was entirely unjust and thoroughly inappropriate.
"John B. Greet:
With all due respect to City Hall and Mr. Haubert, it seems unwise and unjust to pick and choose from among the laws we will enforce or require others to abide by. "
Did you, by any chance, note my earlier comment, here, that there are many legitimate and necessary reasons that (selective enforcement) sometimes occurs? I do not happen to think our current approach to medical marijuana is among them.
Perhaps you do. That is just fine and we can have that discussion if you like, but I notice that you didn't address a single one of my earlier rebuttals or challenges even though you have now had ample opportunity to do so.
You persist in your failure to quote the sections of policy or law that you feel permit or enable police employees to abuse their authority.
You fail to acknowledge the truth that the police department has suffered considerable budget cuts right along with every other department.
You refuse to acknowledge the unjust and inappropriate nature of your Zerby comment.
Come on, Sander. Step up and support some of what you say with something even remotely resembling a fact.
We also know that Council members are not legally allowed to discuss City business outside of public forums, yet strangely they often reach unanimous votes with little or no public discussion.
We know that conflicts of interest are, at best, frowned upon and, at worst, illegal yet realtors, developers, and municipal entities often have very cozy relationships. Some of these relationships have resulted in dismissals but, more often than not, they result in transfers to other departments within the City.
These are all symptoms of a systemic problem. Anyone who follows local politics knows about these issues.
For the last time, I'm not going to apologize for feeling scared. The Zerby case was the first thing I thought of when the officer rolled up. I thought to myself, "Oh $#!+, I hope he doesn't shoot me!" You can mock and ridicule my reaction, and call it whatever you like, but that was my first thought when I saw the car. You may feel uncomfortable to hear me say it, but it is the truth.
I've not had the time to research the LBPD budget for the last 5 years. You're good at such things, though. Perhaps you can get some numbers so we can know the facts.
For the last time, I do not fault anyone for being afraid. Fear can actually be a very healthy emotion, because it can provide both positive and constructive motivations. It can also provide negative and destructive motivations. You seem to have experienced the latter sort, and I think that is very unfortunate.
But Sander, fear is one thing, expressing it as you did here, so flippantly and unjustly. I would really like to believe you are better than that, or can be.
Policy is not defined just in the municipal code. It can also be set in briefings, through culture, through peer pressure, and in many other ways. For example, there are many Federal laws that the President refuses to enforce. What, then, is the policy?
I've been very forthcoming with my meaning of what 'policy' is. I've provided you with specific examples of what I consider to be abuse based on policies set by the Chief and City Manager. For you to deny that I've answered your questions is unfair, and untrue. I expect better from you.
For you to describe my sincere expression as flippant and unjust is, frankly, unkind. You may have perceived it that way, but I've stated repeatedly that my intent was a sincere and honest expression of what I was thinking and feeling. To call me a liar is hurtful, and wrong. I expect better from you, John.
I have asked you several times to site the policy that permits or enables LBPD's abuse of its authority and you have consistently refused to do so.
I am well aware that policy originates from several sources, so please do pick just *one* that permits or enables police abuse of authority and cite it. If as you say, "there has been example after example" than it should be quite easy for you to cite just one. Either do so, or admit that you cannot and that you do not, in fact, have any objectively verifiable evidence with which to support your claim.
The degree to which the President refuses to enforce any federal law is, I believe, the degree to which he is serving in direct contravention of his oath of office.
That you were "sincere" in your Zerby comment simply means that you were sincere in your intent to be flippant and unjust in uttering it. Expressing fear in a non- flippant and just manner is one thing, but that is not what you did here, Sander. That you either cannot or will not recognize and acknowledge this truth is a tragedy all its own.
I have given you two specific examples of selective enforcement, directed by appointed municipal authorities. The first was the Critical Mass incident. The second was the Christmas Fundraising Ride. Both of those police actions were directed by our City Manager, and implemented under the direction of our Chief of police. The leadership that drove these actions is, I believe, the same leadership that emboldens the rank and file officers to ignore their legal responsibilities. I can't state my case more clearly than that. If what I've written is unclear to you, or does not satisfy your thirst for 'facts,' I can't help you further.
First, I find your premise to be flawed. You seem to believe that selective enforcement is, de facto, an abuse of police authority. But this is just not always the case. Whenever laws are enforced selectively it is most often in furtherence of the interests of justice, and not due to some deep dark police conspiracy to abuse authority or to violate anyone's rights.
Second, your comments re. Zerby -delivered in the manner and the context that they were- remain despicable. When you lash out unjustly at others out of fear (your motivation, by your own admission), then you allow your fears to win, to control and to ultimately defeat you.
Rational, intelligent adults should be able to overcome such base and irrational motivations and think more critically and behave more responsibily.
Or so I believe.
Second, you are quite simply wrong. The administration of justice involves several co-equal and co-dependent components and one of them is, indeed, law enforcement.
Discretion in enforcing the laws is an essential and, indeed, requisite part of policing in a free and civil society. Applied appropriately, police discretion does, indeed, further the interests of justice. Applied inappropriately, it does not.
Society not only permits but *expects* professional police officers to use discretion. Our entire system of justice would quickly grind to a halt but for the daily professional application of police discretion.
As Jeremy Travis, former director of the National Institute of Justice from 1995-2000 once opined, "...giving
police officers permission to use their professional judgment is not the same as endorsing random or arbitrary policing"...."policing
that reflects a neighborhood's values and sense of justice and that understands residents'
concerns is more likely to do justice than policing that strictly follows a rule book."
In the 1950's, the American Bar Foundation conducted research which explained that "police work is complex, that police use enormous discretion, *that discretion is at the core of police functioning*, and that police use criminal law to sort out myriad problems." (Emphasis added)
If the police enforced the letter of every law on the books in every instance, we would not be able to print enough ticket books for all of the cites that would be necessary, nor hire enough clerical and other support staff to process those cites, nor build enough courts nor appoint enough judges, prosecutors and public defenders to adjudicate all of the arrests that would be made, nor construct enough prisons or appoint enough custodial staff to house and monitor all of the people who would suddenly find themselves in custody.
No, Sander. Professional police officers exercise some level of discretion during virtually every single call, traffic stop, detention, and arrest they are involved in. so long as police discretion is applied in an ethical and professional manner, it is both a proper and necessary exercise of police authority.
Professional discretion is never intended to replace or to subvert either law or policy but, rather, to provide guidance and inform decision-making in those areas where law may be unclear or conflicting and where policy does not (and often can not) address every specific circumstance.
When discretion is abused, that is a completely different matter. But I do not believe you have yet described any abuse here. As I said, I look forward to the balance of Geggory's story. Perhaps some objectively verifiable evidence of police abuse of authority will be offered in part 2.
"Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from."
How about this:
"A valid statute may be rendered invalid as violative of equal protection if its provisions are selectively enforced. In order to accomplish this the defendant must show that while the law has been consciously and deliberately enforced against him, there is premeditated abstention from enforcing it against others."
Enjoy!
You'll note, I hope, that I did offer that giving police officers permission to use their professional judgment is not the same as endorsing random or arbitrary policing.
You'll note, I hope, that I did state that I do not feel that police discretion furthers the interests of justice whenever it is applied inappropriately.
I do not think you have demonstrated that Off. Khan engaged in "tyranny," or abused his power, violated the rule of law, or applied justice only when he chose.
Nor do I believe you have demonstrated that Off. Khan rendered any statute invalid as violative of equal protection by selectively enforcing its provisions.
Nor do I feel you have demonstrated that Off. Khan consciously and deliberately enforced a statute against you, while demonstrating a premeditated abstention from enforcing it against others.
Can you explain, then, how you feel your two quotes apply in this case? Thanks!
I don't need to, nor do I desire to, convince you of anything. You're entitled to your opinions and beliefs, regardless of whatever facts may stand in opposition to them.
Peace,
Sander.
It seems that you have closed your mind in this case, however, and decided that those who agree with you are more worthy of consideration...simply because they agree with you. That is certainly your prerogative, but I would suggest that such an approach is not a reasonable path to either knowledge or truth.
Throughout this article, and the long string of comments following it, you have made quite a few assertions that I have directly refuted, offering many objectiviely verifiable facts to support my positions. Each time that I have done so, rather than acknowledge the truth of what I have said, you have simply moved on to other assertions.
Very well, sir. You argue in your way and I will argue in mine and at the end of the day, reasonable people can decide for themselves whose opinions are more closely aligned with fact.
I continue to look forward to the information to be offered in part 2.
Be well.
I find it laughable that you presume to know the legitimacy of the officer's actions, despite my first hand account of what actually happened, and even though you weren't there, haven't spoken to the officer, or have any other real insight into the incident. You have no idea if the officer behaved improperly or not, yet you continue to defend him. To me, that is a clear sign of a closed mind.
Not once have you said that, if the scenario I described went down exactly as I said it did, it would be a clear violation of the law. That would be a sign, to me, of you having an open mind.
Peace,
Sander.
I have also said that whenever misconduct does occur it should be properly documented, thoroughly investigated and, where proven, should be swiftly and appropriately punished.
-and-
Police officers, like any other public employee, should not be immune from public scrutiny and whenever it is proven that they have violated any law, policy, or procedure they should not only be criticized, but punished appropriately.
I am no more prepared to judge Off. Khan based solely upon your perception of the events, than I would be to judge you based solely upon his. As best as I can tell you seem to be seeking some sort of validation for the legitimacy of your fears through the an acknowledgment by others that Off. Khan's actions were somehow improper.
If Off. Khan's actions are proven to be improper, I will stand right beside you in condemning them. But proof has not yet been offered to my satisfaction.
Sorry.
I think it is also possible that your admitted fear during this encounter may have acted in combination with your indicated prejudice against the well-acknowleded and sometimes necessary practice of selective enforcement. These, in turn, may have been compounded by your general lack of understanding of law enforcement policies and procedures. These, then, may have combined with your clear bias related to the Critical Mass incident. All of the aforementioned may then have been further tainted by your predisposition against and derision toward LBPD related to Zerby. All of these internal influences, and goodness knows how many others, may have, in turn, combined to adversely influence the manner in which you perceived and have remembered the entire event in question.
Perhaps we'll find out in part 2.
Also, I hardly think it insulting to state that being called 'deluded' is insulting. If it is, then perhaps you should choose your statements more carefully.
And, yes, we should all choose our statements more carefully...just as when Greggory felt compelled to change the text in his story, post-publication, to make his statement a more accurate representation of what actually occurred. And just as you should have chosen your own flippant and despicable hose nozzle statement more carefully, because making that reference in the manner in which you did served only to demonstrate your willingness to descend into the very same insulting rhetorical depths as chronic complainers and habitual malcontents such as like Mike Ruehle. Do you truly want to comment in the same false, fraudulent, insulting, dismissive, and otherwise misleading manner that people like him so often do?
You wrote that my state of mind "adversely influence[d] the manner in which [I] perceived and have remembered the entire event in question." That is precisely the dictionary definition of 'deluded.' Thus, you called me deluded. To deny this is dishonest. Don't try to back-pedal, John. Stand by what you wrote.
I know Sander to be a very intelligent and courteous fellow. That's why I am so surprised whenever his comments take on more of the insulting and often intellectually dishonest characteristics of people like Mike Ruehle, than of his own generally well-reasoned and courteous arguments.
I sure hope that 2nd part of this story comes out soon. It may well answer many of the questions that have been raised following part 1!
I am sorry but you are not an attorney. You have grossly misinterpreted the law. I agree with RW Crum and the majority here that you are wrong and the actions of LB Police were appropriate. If an actual criminal were truly casing for a crime, I, and most LB citizens, would be glad that the police investigated and kept a field encounter report. You are fond of quoting "wise men," well, a wise man also once said that "when you're in a hole, stop digging." Respectfully, Mr Wolff, you are in a legal/logic hole and have nowhere to go. Your credibility has been damaged. There seems to be an agenda to your protests. If you feel fear of the LB Police then you have other issues to deal with. The police are here to protect us from criminals. My advice to you is to acknowledge that this is, as Shakespeare once said, "much ado about nothing." Good day sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo
If you watch the video through to the end, you'll see that the police officers, understanding the law, honored the rights of the photographers in the documentary. Despite the wishes of the property owners, and their private security officers, the photographers had every legal right to stand on public property and take photographs. That, by itself, in no way qualifies as reasonable suspicion, and one of the officers said so. If anyone can show me where, in the law, photography of any kind on public property qualifies as a suspicious and potentially criminal act, please do so. I'd really like to know.
Taking pictures from public property is legal in most States, and with few exceptions, and does not qualify in and of itself as a criminal, or intrinsically suspicious, act. This is true even when private property owners complain about it.
While it does not address every instance, this article seems to sum up the guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States
Off. Khan demonstrated both an understanding of the law and honored the rights of the photographer in your story. You freely admit as much when you told Greggory that Off. Khan allowed you to proceed with your photography after concluding his investigation. He did not stop you, he did not confiscate your camera, he did not arrest you, nor even search you. He briefly detained you, identified you, interviewed you, and then left so you could go about your business. By your own account, Off. Khan was friendly and low key about the whole thing. Where is the complaint, exactly?
You stated: "If anyone can show me where, in the law, photography of any kind on public property qualifies as a suspicious and potentially criminal act, please do so. I'd really like to know." Sander, the law is not intended to address photography or any other specific act. It is intended to address behavior that, in the officer's mind, based upon the totality of the circumstances, could indicate that the person has committed, or is about to commit, criminal activity. Terrorist acts are crimes. Acts in furtherence of terrorism are crimes. Surveillance is an act in furtherence of terrorism. On-scene photography and videography are common techniques for conducting surveillance. You were photographing a facility considered to be part of the city's critical infrastructure. Someone reported you to the police. The police observed you themselves. Based upon the totality of all of these circumstances, and others we may not be aware of, the officer apparently developed suspicions that he felt were sufficiently reasonable to warrant a brief detention. This really is not rocket science, Sander. You were not detained for "taking pictures." You were detained because your actions were reasonably suspicious given the totality of the circumstances.
The suspicion specified in Terry is developed in the mind of the reasonable *officer* not the reasonable *person.* This distinction is necessary because officers have unique training, knowledge, and experience that allows them to better assess activities and information in the context of criminality, than the average citizen. An average citizen thought you seemed suspicious and then an officer with more training, knowledge and experience in criminal behaviors also thought you seemed suspicious. Those circumstances alone are sufficient to meet the standard of reasonableness required in Terry. Add to those the totlity of the other circumstances I have mentioned and there really is no question that your brief detention was reasonable and, therefor, lawful.
I, for one, do not "feel that an intentional disregard of law by those charged to uphold and enforce it is nothing." Neither do I believe, however, that you or Greggory have demonstrated that this is what occurred in your case.
The fact that the officer was nice about it is irrelevant. This is patently illegal.
I have reviewed each of your many comments in both articles and now stand must humbly corrected. You, at least, appear to have been very careful to never refer to Off. Khan by name and each time Greggory offered comments in which Off. Khan's name was misspelled, those he attributed specifically to you were never in quotes. I willingly acknowledge that you have not misspelled Off. Khan's name in either of these articles. I gladly correct the record and revise my comments accordingly.
It appears that only Greggory, the author, could not be bothered to determine the correct spelling of the officer's name and to indicate the correct spelling throughout both of his columns.
I do not presume to speak for LBPD and I never have. Greggory's characterization of LBPD's response may, itself, very well be inaccurate. We have no evidence, other than his word of course, that LBPD said what he claims.
I would surmise that when Greggory called to inquire, he may have been told that if a complaint had been filed or was going to be filed, it would have to be properly investigated and that under those circumstances, comments on the record would be inappropriate pending the outcome of a formal investigation.
Given that information, it appears that both you and Greggory decided to pursue the informal, opinionist, route of inquiry, rather than the formal, official route. As I have said many times now, this is unfortunate.
Your choice served to cut off many legitimate lines of inquiry that could not by properly pursued on an informal basis.
Your choice prevented witness identification and interviews.
Your choice prevented evidence identification, collection, and evaluation.
Your choice prevented both you and Off. Khan from full access to your respective right of due process and a redress of grievance.
Put simply, your choice served more greatly to benefit yourself, personally, and Greggory, as the columnist, than it did to correct any wrongs that may in fact have been committed here.
I can tell you that in my personal experience and opinion, the formal LBPD complaint policies, procedures, and processes -while by no means perfect- are very good and quite effective. Whether or not they have been improved since I left, I really have no idea. Since the first of the year I have been inside the main police station exactly twice; once to pick up my final check and once to pick up my retirement identification card.
I have *many* disagreements with you about this incident and the manner in which you have chosen to respond to, and report it. Our disagreement concerning "Terry" and the concept of "reasonable suspicion" is but one aspect of this.
Key to *any* analysis of "reasonable suspicion" in this context are: 1. The totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter and 2: The officer's (not the citizen's) interpretation of those circumstances.
Your approach to inquiry, here, has effectively *prevented* a full disclosure and reasonable analysis of either of these critical factors.
You said: "Only when a criminal act is evident is that threshold (of reasonable suspicion) crossed." But that is simply your misinterpretation of the Court's opinion in "Terry."
First and foremost: "Terry" dealt far more with a pat down search for weapons than it did the actual detention.
("The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation.")
You were *not* searched, for weapons or otherwise, correct?
Second: The court found that Off. McFadden (the officer in "Terry") was acting entirely within his scope of authority when he detained Terry and his companions.
("One general interest is of course that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It was this **legitimate investigative function** Officer McFadden was discharging when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz **go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.**" [emphasis added])
Third: The court went so far as to opine that given the totality of the circumstances that existed in that case, it would have been an example of poor police work had McFadden *not* detained Terry, et al.
("It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further.")
These are the *facts* of some of the opinions in "Terry", Sander. Copied verbatim from that case.
The totality of the circumstances surrounding your own detention are not known and, now, cannot be known, precisely because you have failed to take the steps necessary to properly determine what those were.
Off. Khan's actions may well have proven unlawful and counter-constitutional, but to know this of a certainty the question would have had to be adjudicated in a court of law, just as "Terry" was.
Filing a complaint, and then a claim, and then a lawsuit, could have gotten us there.
Reporting and discussing your observations and your perceptions and your interpretations here, never could and never will.
Sadly.
As a citizen you had an unequivocal RIGHT to file a formal complaint in this instance, Sander. That you chose to squander it in this way is, I think,a travesty.
I feel certain that there will be nothing changed in the way of LBPD policy as it relates to the manner in which officers contact people who have been reported as engaged in suspicious activity.
In my opinion, nothing either you or Greggory have described constitutes a violation of either policy, procedure, or statutory or case law.
The Chief (who sets Department policy) and a Deputy City Attorney (who helps to advise him on legal matters of this sort) both seem to agree with my assessment.
Perhaps, had you followed the proper approach for reporting an allegation of police officer misconduct, more information could have come to light that might have changed this assessment.
But you did not, and so it did not, and so the assessment remains as will, most likely, department policy.
You had a chance to change that, Sander. But you failed to avail yourself of that chance.
I rather doubt the PD is "acting like a victim." If the PD seems defensive, however, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you are publicly condemning it, and one of its officers, here, without fulfilling a citizen's *obligation* to file a complaint formally.
Your doing so would have allowed it to investigate your allegations properly and in a timelier manner, and, if warranted, would have given it a basis upon which to take corrective and, perhaps, even punitive action.
Such responses from the PD rightly require due process, Sander. Something you failed to allow to occur.