Title: Taxpayers to Be Held Liable After Cops Steal Man’s Phone, Film Themselves Conspiring to Frame Him Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:https://thefreethoughtproject.com/t ... tand-trial-frame-innocent-man/ Published:Sep 29, 2019 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2019-09-29 10:58:38 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:21935 Comments:130
Hartford, CT — On September 11, 2015, journalist and police accountability activist, Michael Picard was illegally detained for lawfully open carrying and filming police on public property. During the illegal detainment, Connecticut state troopers confiscated his gun and his camera. However, the trooper who took the phone went on to make a critical mistake — he left the camera rolling while conspiring with fellow officers to falsely charge Picard. In 2017, it was revealed by the department that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong when they conspired to frame an innocent man.
“They were exonerated,” police union attorney Mark Dumas said. “The troopers didn’t do anything wrong. They were doing their jobs, and they do an excellent job.”
Apparently this “excellent job” consisted of trampling the rights of an innocent person and conspiring to have them kidnapped and locked in a cage. Sure thing, Dumas.
Now, because the system failed to hold the officers accountable, the case is now a civil matter and the troopers involved have been ordered to stand trial in the civil suit brought on by the ACLU of Connecticut. The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
The Free Thought Project spoke to the ACLU via email this week, who issued the following statement on the case.
“The Constitution is clear: people have a right to protest the police, and people have a right against police taking their property from them without a warrant,” said ACLU of Connecticut legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “The evidence, including video, will show that these police employees were more concerned with covering up their bad behavior, undermining free speech, and retaliating against a protester than with upholding the law. We look forward to getting justice for Michael in front of the jury.”
We agree. TFTP also spoke to Picard, who told us the following.
“People have the right to protest, including the right to protest police, without ticketing or retaliation against them. I am deeply disappointed that these police ignored my rights, and I am hopeful that the court will hold them accountable so that no one else has to experience what I did,” said Picard.
As TFTP reported at the time, on that September night, Picard and a friend were on public property and warning drivers of a DUI checkpoint ahead. They were several hundred yards from the checkpoint and not interfering at all when troopers drove up, without lights on, and against the flow of traffic, to begin harassing the two gentlemen.
Trooper First Class John Barone, Sergeant John Jacobi, and Trooper Jeff Jalbert falsely claimed that Picard was waving his gun around and pointing it at people. However, Picard was holding a sign the entire time and did not touch his gun. Also, as you will see below, the officers admit that they were lying.
“Police should be focused on public safety, not punishing protesters and those who film public employees working on a public street,” said ACLU-CT legal director Dan Barrett, who is representing Picard in the lawsuit. “As the video shows, these police officers were more concerned with thwarting Mr. Picard’s free speech and covering their tracks than upholding the law.”
Had Picard actually been waving a gun, these troopers would have approached the situation in an entirely different manner, with guns drawn and possible SWAT backup. However, they did no such thing, because there was clearly no threat from the activists.
The fact that there was no threat did not stop the subsequent assault, however.
Two troopers approached Picard while forcefully removing his gun and then grabbing his camera, falsely claiming it is illegal to film. When Picard informs the officer can legally film here, the officer ignorantly asserts that “It’s illegal to take my picture. Personally, it is illegal.”
“Did you get any documentation that I am allowing you to take my picture”? asks the cop.
When Picard attempts to explain to the aggressive officer that he doesn’t need a permit because he is on public property, the trooper then makes the asinine declaration that, “No I’m not (on public property). I’m on state property. I’m on state property.”
State-owned roadways and right of ways are public property. The trooper’s assertion that it is illegal to film on his ‘state property’ was entirely false and in violation of Connecticut Bill No. 245, which “protects the right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the performance of their duties.”
All this aggressive and unlawful behavior of these troopers, however, was about to come back to haunt them. After illegally confiscating the camera — the trooper forgot to stop it from recording.
What happened next was a behind the scenes glimpse of what it looks and sounds like when cops lie to charge innocent people with crimes.
The corruption starts as an unidentified trooper begins to search for anything that these gentlemen may have done to make up charges against them. However, they were clean. At this point, Trooper first class Barone chimes in describing how they now have to charge these men with something to justify their harassment and subsequent detainment.
“Want me to punch a number on this? Gotta cover our ass,” explains the trooper as they begin conspiring.
“Let’s give him something,” says an unidentified trooper, pondering the ways they can lie about this innocent man.
“What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?” says Sergeant Jacobi, noting that they are entirely innocent.
“It’s legal to do it,” he continues,describing how the actions of the two activists are completely legal, before going on to make up charges on them.
“I think we do simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance,” Jacobi says as he makes up these false charges against innocent people. “All three are tickets.”
Once they figure out the false charges to raise, the officers then brainstorm a story of lies to back them up.
“And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple, um,” the unidentified trooper stutters as he makes up his fake story. “Um, they (the non-existent complainants) didn’t want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.”
The corrupt cops had then solved their fake case, lied about a cover story, and were set to charge an innocent man with three crimes — all in a day’s work.
But there was just one more thing…. “Oh s**t!” blurts out the cop as he realizes their entire scandalous corrupt conversation was just recorded. Apparently, however, the officer felt that it must not have recorded their conversation as the phone was returned.
The cops then gave the innocent man back his weapon, and it’s back to the DUI checkpoint for them — to harass and detain more innocent people.
Picard explained that all of the troopers involved in his unlawful situation were never disciplined and allowed to progress through the ranks, with some of them retiring. Picard explains:
Trooper First Class John Barone, the trooper who said it was illegal for me to record him, seized my camera and recorded himself saying, “We gotta cover our ass,” is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers.
Sergeant John Jacobi is now retired and collecting a pension thanks to the taxpayers.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo, the trooper who said “let’s give him something,” and then helped fabricate a story to charge me, was demoted for reportedly driving drunk, but is now a lieutenant.
Lieutenant Stavros Mellekas, who conducted the internal affairs “investigation” and found that the troopers did nothing wrong, was magically promoted four ranks, and is now second in command of the Connecticut State Police.
All troopers are being represented by the attorney general’s office and their defense is being paid for by the taxpayers.
[Matt Agorist] The taxpayers, not the officers will be the ones to pay for the crimes.
One must wonder why the taxpayer will pay if no governmental entity is a party to this lawsuit.
The COMPLAINT at 2, paragraphs 10-13, identifies the Defendants:
10. Defendant John Barone was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of trooper first class.
11. Defendant Patrick Torneo was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of master sergeant.
12. Defendant John Jacobi was and is, at all time relevant to this suit, employed by the Division of State Police within the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, with the job title of sergeant.
13. At all times relevant to this action, the defendants were on duty for their employer, and were wearing Connecticut State Police uniforms, badges, and pistols.
No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability.
Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit?
If you have no legal theory, you may have to start riding the short bus again.
[nolu chan #74] No government entity is party to the lawsuit. The three officers are sued in their individual capacity. Just curious, but what is your legal theory of government liability.
[nolu chan #74] Do you infer that the court may order the government to pay, even though they are not party to the lawsuit?
Regarding a legal theory, it appears the legal theory is *c*r*i*c*k*e*t*s*.
[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.
Why? What is your legal theory? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?
Perhaps a U.S. Supreme Court opinion will help rouse y'all from your stupor.
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974)
At 675-677:
But it has not heretofore
415 U. S. 676
been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that
415 U. S. 677
section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.
Just asking, trying to clarify what y'all are saying. Do you expect judgment for the plaintiff and against the government?
Deckard, where are you? Stand tall and be counted. Hiding in a corner, squatting in your own puddle of warm piss is no way to go through life. I await your legal theory of how the taxpayers are liable. In the meantime, while you hide in silence...
With a view toward your CLE, here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion.
Anderson v. Creighton et al, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) qualified immunity
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-1520. Argued February 23, 1987—Decided June 25, 1987
Petitioner, a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, participated with other law enforcement officers in a warrantless search of respondents’ home. The search was conducted because petitioner believed that one Dixon, who was suspected of a bank robbery committed earlier that day, might be found there, but he was not. Respondents filed a state-court action against petitioner, asserting a claim for damages under the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner removed the suit to Federal District Court and then filed a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by his qualified immunity from civil damages liability. Before any discovery occurred, the court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search’s lawfulness could not be determined on summary judgment, because factual disputes precluded deciding as a matter of law that the search was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court also held that petitioner was not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, since the right he allegedly violated—the right of persons to be protected from warrantless searches of their homes unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances—was clearly established.
Held:
1. Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he can establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment even though it actually did not. Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action was taken.Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800. In order to conclude that the right which the official allegedly violated is “clearly established,” the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. The Court of Appeals—which apparently considered only the fact that the right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances was clearly established—erred by refusing to consider the argument that it was not clearly established that the circumstances with which petitioner was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. The relevant question here is the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed petitioner’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. Petitioner’s subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant. Pp. 638-641.
2. There is no merit to respondents’ argument that it is inappropriate to give officials alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment—and thus necessarily to have unreasonably searched or seized—the protection of a qualified immunity intended only to protect reasonable official action. Such argument is foreclosed by the fact that this Court has previously extended qualified immunity to officials who were alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment. Also without merit is respondents’ suggestion that Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, be overruled by holding that qualified immunity may never be extended to officials who conduct unlawful warrantless searches.Nor is there any merit to respondents’ contention that no immunity should be provided to police officers who conduct unlawful warrantless searches of innocent third parties’ homes in search of fugitives. Pp. 642-646.
The state, faced with the expected testimony of child-protection experts and a social worker’s troubling case notes, has reached a $4.97 million settlement with the father of Athena Angeles, the 3-year-old Windham girl who was beaten to death in 2011 by her mother’s live-in boyfriend despite her bearing the black eyes and bruises of previous abuse and the warning calls of the staff at her pre-school.
The Department of Children and Families, one of the targets of the father’s $20 million wrongful death and malpractice claim, had never removed Athena or her younger sister from the home or interviewed the mother’s boyfriend in the weeks before Athena’s death. The case had repercussions across the state because Athena had been taken to Windham Hospital only hours before her death with head injuries from abuse, but was released after treatment without a mandated report to authorities. She would return to the hospital a short time later, but would not survive her fresh injuries.
There is a different case in connecictut and they settled and payed taxpayer money. So they do pay out and were held liable.
In the end I suspect Connecticut will pay out in the case we are discussing too. If I am wrong I don't care. It is just my opinion of what will happen.
In December 2005, a Waterbury Superior Court jury found an off-duty Seymour police detective negligent for failing to prevent an intoxicated driver who was drinking at a bar with him from driving. That driver veered off the road after leaving the bar, killing himself and two passengers and seriously injuring another passenger. The jury awarded more than $1 million each to the families of the deceased men, and $2 million to the crash survivor.
Although the police officer was found negligent, the court found the town responsible for paying damages because of the state's indemnification law. This law requires municipalities to assume liability for any injuries caused by an employee in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment that are not the result of wanton or willful conduct.
Seymour filed a motion to set aside the verdict, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a motion for a new trial. These motions will not be heard until May because the defendants cannot file motion briefs without reviewing the trial transcripts, which will not be available until then. Once these briefs are filed, the judge may accept the jury's verdict, set it aside in favor of the town, or order a new trial.
Due to the state's indemnification law, courts may assign liability to parties not named in the original lawsuit. Or so it seems. I can't find anything that indicates that Connecticut's legislature has subsequently changed that law so it does seem that it is still in effect. Unless nolu can prove that avenue of liability has otherwise been closed off. Certainly, AKA has an argument to make here since a court did impose liability on a party (the town) which was not originally named as a plaintiff in the case. And a federal court could do the same, using Connecticut's own indemnification laws and precedents like this case to justify such a decision.
In December 2005, a Waterbury Superior Court jury found an off-duty Seymour police detective negligent for failing to prevent an intoxicated driver who was drinking at a bar with him from driving. That driver veered off the road after leaving the bar, killing himself and two passengers and seriously injuring another passenger. The jury awarded more than $1 million each to the families of the deceased men, and $2 million to the crash survivor.
Although the police officer was found negligent, the court found the town responsible for paying damages because of the state's indemnification law. This law requires municipalities to assume liability for any injuries caused by an employee in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment that are not the result of wanton or willful conduct.
Please note that this is for State ligitation involving a town, and the indemnity law cited here contains various conditions to liability.
Picard is a Federal case in Federal court where the State is NOT a named defendant. And in all the discussion and attempted defense of the screaming headline of Matt Agorist, not one mumbling word has been uttered about the applicable law and its coverage. Nobody has yet identified said law pertaining to STATE officers and employees.
