Sealing records
I cannot believe David Lane’s insulting, anti-police comment of August 14 ("Innocent too often smeared by an arrest"). He stated, “I have represented countless individuals who were wrongfully arrested either based upon their race or because they have engaged in that old off-the-books crime of disturbing the police.” On behalf of cops everywhere, I feel compelled to say that Lane’s comment is just plain dumb and totally illogical.
First of all, “countless” is defined as “more than can be counted,” or, “innumerable.” Second, there is no crime on the books that makes it illegal to be a certain race, and third, there is no crime on the books for disturbing the police. If indeed there are, “countless” false arrests out there for race violations and crimes that do not exist, David Lane could be filling his pockets even more than he is now by simply representing these, “countless” downtrodden victims of overzealous law enforcement personnel in the civil courts. He could even double-dip by representing these, “countless” numbers in records expungement proceedings in court, filling his pockets even more, and laughing all the way to the bank.
Shame on you David Lane. Your statement is just plain dumb and totally illogical. It’s about as authentic and genuine as a Mattel Toy made in China.
This letter has not been edited.
"Second, there is no crime on the books that makes it illegal to be a certain race, and third, there is no crime on the books for disturbing the police."
And, that means that the police don't find other "infractions" to detain people? Riiiiiiiiight....
So, do tell, what are the reasons for keeping these records open to public access? You claim its the "right thing to do", but fail to give any reasons to support this.
"It’s about as authentic and genuine as a Mattel Toy made in China"
You're one to talk...
Posted by Uh huh on August 20, 2007 02:58 PMUh Huh...you are a true moron. The reason to keep these records public is because sometimes these criminals (kinda thinkin your one of them) sometimes "beat the rap." Now you must remember, you only get a criminal record if you are fingerprinted for the arrest. A mere ticket on the street wont earn you a "jacket." Sometimes there is probable cause to arrest, but not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sooo Uh Huh (AKA moron) there ya have it in a nut shell. I'm kinda sick of educating your dumb ass though, and recommend you go back to school...I suggest criminal justice classes and basic English.
Posted by TMR on August 20, 2007 06:16 PMOh, ok, Mr. Montgomery. So, you walk on water. This is clearly stated in so many words in your posts. So, when, gentelemen, you are arrested for that mishappenstance of a DUI because, you had too much to drink at the New Years Eve party and are driving home. From your statements you claim that should you have to change jobs in the near furture you want your potential employer to be aware that you have a drinking problem when, it was only one night of miscalculation. Sure, keep talking about making stupid mistakes and paying for it for the rest of your life while you collect your pention in your ivory tower, that is sir, since you unlike Christ, walk on water.
Yeah, riiight!
Posted by rb on August 20, 2007 07:31 PM"Every cop is a criminal"
Never thought I would quote Mick Jagger but it fits. A lot more people are convicted by false confessions obtained by duress or torture than real criminals 'beat the rap'
Posted by Edmond on August 20, 2007 07:54 PMDuress and tourture? People really think they are sooo important that a cop would do either to get a "confession?" How arrogant.
Having been a police officer for 14 years, I can tell you that none of you are so important that I would compromise my integrity to try to get a "false confession." If you get off, you get off...thats our system.
Edmond, you are as ignorant as you are foolish. Grow up...and quit watching so much television.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 07:53 AMMy ficus has better debating skills than you do, TMR. Try to address the question instead of throwing out insults next time.
But, if you want to play that game, I would say that "TMR" must stand for Total Mental Retard.
Posted by Uh Huh on August 21, 2007 08:11 AMThere are valid points on both sides of this issue.
On the one hand: An arrest does not equal a conviction. The statements from some posters about "beating the rap" shows that many people have an "arrest equals conviction bias."
Last time I checked police officers were human beings, as are DAs. Human beings make mistakes. Some humans are better at their jobs than others. Hopefully no one is so naive as to believe the police never arrest the innocent. Whether a mistake is made by error or by malice it is still a mistake. Should someone else's mistake follow you for the rest of your life?
On the other hand:
Someone with several arrests, even with no convictions, is showing some bad judgement, if nothing else. Not many people put themselves in a position to be arrested once let alone multiple times. Perhaps it would be nice to know about this.
Some actual numbers would help in deciding. How many people who have never been convicted of a crime have been arrested?
How many people who have never been convicted of a crime have been arrested more than once?
How many people who have been arrested and released WITHOUT any conviction have later been arrested and convicted for a different offense (different incident)?
Perhaps some compromise could be reached. Eliminate most details and just have a simple line with no details other than, "Date - Felony Arrest - Released - INNOCENT."
Posted by Colorado Dave on August 21, 2007 08:24 AMI'm confused... if there is no conviction, then a person is innocent in the eyes of the law. So, if they are innocent, why should it be on their record?
Doesn't this whole thing circumvent the American concept of innocent until proven guilty?
Posted by JB on August 21, 2007 08:44 AMJust goes to show, that the police get to impose their definition of "justice" regardless of your guilt or innocence. Chief Montgomery likes the definition: "a police officer thought you committed a crime, and because he is the enforcer and there is a record of it, you are guilty of it." That's proof enough for me...Justice is served!
What a load of crap. The police are anti-public and always have been. The "us against them" thin blue line is alive and well. Go into any criminal court in the state and you'll see some of the best liars in the world wearing badges.
And of course, there are other officers that are honest, law-abiding, and exercise their powers judiciously.
Sealed records protect us from the liars. What is wrong with that?
p.s. Thanks, Chief for the legal primer. There may be no law on the books for "disturbing the police", but try to question an officer (at a distance) during an arrest of someone else or even film them/take a picture and you'll be arrested so fast for "disturbing the peace", "inciting a riot", "refusing to obey a peace officer", "obstruction of justice" or some other bogus charge, it'll make your head swim. And then, when you're not prosecuted, there's a record that you've been arrested.
The power is in the arrest. It's in the inference. And there should be protections.
Posted by BarneyFife on August 21, 2007 05:08 PMI don't know when Chief Dan retired, but a couple of years ago I served on a municipal jury for a Westminster case. Young woman arrested for interfering with and not obeying a lawful order of a police officer in her own home (the police had responded to a questionable 911 call - turned out to be one of the kids playing around).
She defended herself and a young city attorney handled the prosecution. Things were going good for the prosecution until the second cop got on the stand. His arrogance and assumption of nobody doubting him tripped him up under cross by the defendant, a non attorney. We acquitted as it became obvious the second cop was embellishing the facts to show his authority regardless of his actions.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 10:08 PM