South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court against state trooper Lance Cpl. Alexander Richardson, alleging that the trooper chased a man through an apartment complex, hitting him three times with his patrol car.

Calvin Rucker, 25, said in the suit filed last month in U.S. District Court in Columbia that he was hit by the trooper’s car three times while running through the complex on April 28, 2007.

A dashboard video obtained earlier this year by The State shows Rucker being hit at least once at Columbia Garden Apartments on Plowden Road off South Beltline Boulevard.

The video also shows Lance Cpl. Alexander Richardson driving his patrol car over sidewalks and curbs in the apartment complex. A man and his young son are seen on the video running out of the way of Richardson’s oncoming cruiser.

No charges have been brought against Richardson, and the U.S. Attorney's only comment is that the case is "still open." Last week, another trooper was acquitted in federal court of accusations that he purposefully ran down a man in his patrol car, despite a video showing him swerve to hit the man and despite his statement on the video that he hit the man on purpose; maybe the only way to effect some change in these cases is to file lawsuits such as this one.

According to the State newspaper, Richardson had already been disciplined twice before this incident, once for hitting a suspect in the face. Following this incident, Richardson was reprimanded and required to take a stress management class, but he is still employed with the South Carolina Highway Patrol in the same unit in Columbia.

The State news also has Richardson's account of what happened:

In his internal affairs statement obtained by The State, Richardson said he was on his way home about 7 p.m. when Rucker’s burgundy Chevrolet Caprice sped through a red light at Shop Road and South Beltline Boulevard, nearly hitting him.

At the time, Rucker was being chased by another trooper in an unmarked car. Richardson said he took over the chase and pursued Rucker to the Plowden Road apartment complex nearby, where Rucker abandoned his car and fled on foot.

Richardson said he initially tried to use his patrol car and one of the apartment buildings as “wedge to keep him from escaping,” but that didn’t work.

While chasing him through the complex, Richardson said, he tried to get out of his car to chase him on foot but couldn’t because the electronic control panel for the windows and locks was loose and in the way of the door handle.

He said that while he was briefly looking at his door, he “accidentally bumped the violator with the push bumper on the front of my patrol vehicle.” The suspect continued running but quickly gave up and was arrested without incident.

“At no time did I intentionally try to bump the fleeing violator or use my patrol vehicle to forcibly stop him,” Richardson said in his statement.

Richardson said he applied his brakes “hard” just before the collision, though an internal affairs investigator’s review of the tape found no screen indication that the trooper had braked just before the collision.

Richardson in his statement said he didn’t realize until after the chase that two young children were in Rucker’s car, which had dark-tinted windows.

“In a split second, I decided to pursue the violator in and around the apartment buildings,” he said. “Looking back on it after the fact I wish I would not have pursued the violator through the apartment buildings. I am very relieved that no one got hurt.”

Nothing can justify what this man did, driving his patrol car through an apartment complex as people scatter, and striking a fleeing man with his car. It is only sheer luck that no-one was killed as a result of the trooper's actions.

Trooper Steve Garren was found not guilty of intentionally running down a fleeing suspect in a Greenville federal court today, despite the dashcam video showing him swerve to hit the man and despite Garren stating on the video that he hit the man on purpose.

On Wednesday during testimony, suspended Garren said, "There was absolutely no way I could have avoided hitting Mr. Grant … I'm just glad he wasn't hurt. I can assure you if he had been injured, the comment would not have been made."

The comment Garren was referring to was recorded on the dash cam video from June 24, 2007, that shows Grant flipping over the hood of Garren's car.

On Tuesday, jurors heard the recording from Garren's cruiser saying:

Garren: "Hey, I nailed the ---- out of him. I nailed the ---- out of him when he hit that ---- field. He went flying up in the air."

Deputy: "You hit him?"

Garren: "Yeah, I hit him. I was trying to hit him."

Garren testified Wednesday that the statement was made in the "heat of the moment." He said, "I didn't even know I made the statement."

I am glad that the US Attorney brought the charges, and that the federal courts are doing their part to bring attention to police abuse in South Carolina, after local prosecutors refused to bring charges under state law.

Congratulations to Garren's defense attorneys, John O’Leary and Wally Fassoux, for an excellent job defending an unpopular client.

The civil rights trial of trooper Steve Garren is set to begin this week. He is charged with violating the civil rights of a man he struck with his patrol car, a federal crime that carries up to 10 years, because local prosecutors refused to bring charges against him for assault and battery with intent to kill (attempted murder).

According to the Greenville News, a second trooper who is accused of repeatedly kicking a truck driver in the head after a highway chase is expected to go to trial as well, although they do not say when or where.

Garren’s attorney predicted last week his client will be vindicated because of the video that shows the chase on a narrow, dark back road in Greenwood County in June 2007 after Grant bailed out of a car. Lawyer John O’Leary said Garren didn’t have time to get out of the way as Grant cut in front of the cruiser. He also noted no state charges were ever brought.

“There’s no way he could have intended to hit the guy based on that time frame,” O’Leary said. “The truth of the matter is this crime requires that it be willful. And, you know, we just believe it wasn’t. It was an accident.”

I don't know. Looks like the trooper actually swerves to hit the man. What do you think:

But state Rep. Leon Howard, the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, which helped bring the videos to the governor’s attention, said Garren’s bragging shows the mind-set of the trooper.

“It’s ingrained in him to think they’ve got the kind of authority to do the things they do. He acts like he’s just hit a squirrel,” said Howard, D-Columbia. “It’s ridiculous that he would even say that he’s innocent.”

I know that Garren will get better than a fair trial. More often than not, when law enforcement officials are charged with crimes, juries do not hold them accountable. But I am glad that someone is trying to hold these troopers accountable, and, win or lose, these crimes and the abusive attitudes prevalent in law enforcement agencies have been brought into the light of day.

From Fourth Amendment.com:

Last month federal agents executed a search warrant on the office of lawyer George Argie in Cleveland, Ohio, seeking information about one of his clients. The warrant was one of many issued as part of a federal investigation into corruption by Cuyahoga County officials:

Investigators are examining whether Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora and Auditor Frank Russo steered the construction contracts to businesses that provided free improvements to their homes . . . agents want to know whether Dimora and Russo offered jobs in exchange for favors or used their influence in judicial proceedings, decision-making at the top levels of county government and determinations of how much taxes people and companies should pay.

The agents that searched Argie's office took items related only to his work with one of his clients who is under investigation, and Argie was served with a grand jury subpoena to produce additional documents.

Argie says he does not think he is a target; they only wanted information regarding his representation of his client. My question is, if Argie is not a target, how in the hell does a judge sign a search warrant allowing law enforcement to go through his files? One of the first things that we learn regarding the attorney - client privilege is that it is sacrosanct. If a client's confidences cannot be maintained, clients will not be able to confide in their attorneys, and they are denied effective representation.

The appropriate method of obtaining information from an attorney's files is through subpoena, which the attorney can move to quash, providing for a hearing before an impartial judge who can review the materials in camera if necessary to determine if attorney-client privilege applies. Law enforcement cannot walk into lawyer's offices, search through clients' files, and take what they want (as they did in Keith Gore's office in Texas).

If George Argie is the target of a valid investigation, then a search warrant for his office may be justified. If Argie's client waived the attorney client privilege, then Argie can turn over his client's information and a search warrant would not have been necessary. But if Argie was not a target and his client did not consent, this is a serious problem - law enforcement cannot bypass judicial review and ignore attorney client privilege in their search for evidence.

Excerpts from the May 15 video of Greenville county sheriff's deputy Brian Tollison beating a teenaged suspect were released last week. The video shows a second deputy hold 18-year-old Jeremy Rucker down while Tollison punches him 13 times; other deputies then taser and kick him.

Tollison has been charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and Rucker's attorney has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice. Rucker was charged with resisting arrest and drug possession. The driver of the truck ran away after the truck was pulled over, then the officers decided to take Rucker into custody, which apparently involved beating him senseless.

No mention of what the officer's probable cause for arresting Rucker was - sitting in a truck and talking on a cell phone, regardless of what the driver has done, is not probable cause for arrest. If there was no valid arrest, there was no resisting arrest. The officers said that after it was all over, they found drugs on Rucker.

I have to ask, if Rucker had been white, would this have happened differently? Maybe or maybe not, but white officers beating black suspects, using racial slurs, running black suspects down with their patrol cars, and racial profiling on our interstates, do nothing for our state's image.

And what about the other officers that held him down, kicked him and tasered him? Ironically, if this was three young black males instead of three uniformed officers, in South Carolina they may well be charged with second degree lynching:

Lynching is defined as a violent act that is inflicted on another person by a mob. A mob is described as the assembly of two or more people, without authority or color of law, with premeditated purpose and premeditated intent of committing an act of violence upon another person. First degree lynching is when death results, and carries a potential sentence of five to forty years or the death penalty. Second degree lynching is when death does not result, and carries a potential penalty of three to twenty years.

Two of the officers involved in the May 26th beating of a handcuffed subject, Officers Louis Schwartz and Jason Zangara, were fired today. The third officer, Kurt Graham, a rookie cop on probation still, resigned on July 22.

"The West Palm Beach Police Department has a zero tolerance policy for use of excessive force," said city spokesman Chase Scott in a statement released this afternoon. "Following an internal investigation which the department launched itself without a complaint from the robbery suspect, Chief Delsa Bush substantiated that the incident on May 26th, 2008 was a violation of policy and the involved officers have all either resigned or have been served with notices of termination as of this date."

The suspect/victim had just stolen pain pills from a pharmacy and threatened an officer with pepper spray. After he was cuffed and laying on his stomach on the ground, the officers punched and kicked him, then after he was stood up one officer repeatedly punched him in the face. I wonder how long it will be before one or more of the officers is hired by another agency, and why these cops aren't being prosecuted for their crime.

There is video on the Palm Beach Post's website, and it has found its way to Youtube as well:

More fun and games with the NYPD and NY bicyclists in the video below, from Bliptv and the Agitator. What is Critical Mass? According to Wikipedia,

Critical Mass is a bicycling event typically held on the last Friday of every month in cities around the world. While the ride was originally founded with the idea of drawing attention to how unfriendly the city was to bicyclists,[1] the leaderless structure of Critical Mass makes it impossible to assign it any one specific goal. In fact, the purpose of Critical Mass is not formalized beyond the direct action of meeting at a set location and time and traveling as a group through city or town streets.

Bicycling in NYC is now a contact sport. 2 points per bicyclist knocked down, 4 if the nearby videographer is also arrested. Bonus points for creativity in writing your arrest report.

The NYC police officer who assaulted a bicyclist on Monday is just one more example of a lying cop busted by a videocamera. People in general want to believe that the police are honest and tell the truth. We don't want to believe that cops will lie, to help themselves or to obtain a conviction, but the truth is that cops are human like everyone else, they are not always rigorously honest, they often abuse the power that is given to them with their badge, and many cops will lie under oath and on the stand.

Officer Patrick Bogan swore in an affidavit that Christopher Long was disorderly, and that Long attacked him by running into him with his bicycle. A prosecutor filed charges against Long based on the officer's testimony. No other officers who were present and watched Officer Bogan commit a crime did anything to stop him, nor did they speak up to stop Long's prosecution. If it were not for the video taken by an observer, Long would be prosecuted for assaulting an officer - the judge would believe the officer and the jury would most likely believe the officer.

Thanks to the Smoking Gun and Simple Justice, here is the criminal complaint charging the bicyclist with assaulting an officer:

NYPD assaults a bicyclist, who is then arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer. More at blip.tv.

This video of Long Beach police forcefully arresting a woman, found by A Public Defender, was timely in light of my discussion of Brannon and unlawful arrests:

The LA Times released a story two days ago which raises new questions about the reliability of DNA evidence in court. Well, what strikes me about this story is not the reliability of DNA evidence so much as the ethics of the FBI.

Government experts routinely explain to juries how certain a DNA match is, although I hear different numbers each time. Pick a random number that is too big for the brain to comprehend; one in that number is the odds of another DNA match occurring. I in 113 billion. 1 in 100 billion. 1 in 108 trillion. 1 in 1 quadrillion. FBI experts have testified that certain DNA profiles are unique, to a reasonable degree of certainty.

The problem is, FBI analysts have never tested 100 billion, trillion, or quadrillion DNA samples and looked for matches. They are giving their best guess, and undoubtedly the need to obtain convictions transforms a "best guess" into a "reasonable degree of certainty."

In the 1990s, FBI scientists estimated the rarity of each genetic marker by extrapolating from sample populations of a few hundred people from various ethnic or racial groups. The estimates for each marker are multiplied across all 13 loci to come up with a rarity estimate for the entire profile.

However, the growing number of samples contained in state DNA databases is making real research into DNA matches possible. An Arizona crime lab analyst began finding dozens of DNA matches in the state database. Court ordered searches in two states found 1000 pairs that matched (9 of 13 points matching). A court ordered search in an Arizona case found 122 matches in 65,000 samples tested.

The odds that the new searches indicate are still substantial, and likely are still not only admissible but persuasive in court. The ever growing DNA databases offer new unique opportunities for research that may benefit not only the court systems but the sciences as well. And yet, rather than open up the DNA databases for testing, or even conduct their own testing, the FBI went on a campaign to prevent any such tests.

They threatened state labs who complied with court orders to conduct the tests. They schemed to figure out ways to trick judges into not granting defense counsels' requests for testing. They told judges that they would cut off state labs from the national databases if the courts ordered the tests, and consulted experts who would explain to judges that the tests were not scientific and not necessary. They argued that the tests would violate the privacy rights of convicted felons and that they would result in the systems being overloaded and shut down. They argued that, under federal law, the databases were exclusively for the use of law enforcement agencies and not defense lawyers.

Why not run the tests, get accurate probabilities based on real numbers, and tell the truth to juries? The probabilities are surely going to be impressive even if they are not as ridiculously large as the FBI has been claiming. I doubt that it will result in more acquittals. To me this story was not about the revelation of finding DNA matches so much as the FBI's attempt to hide the truth and preserve their inflated estimates. I hope that this national discussion sparked by the Times' story leads to more research and testing in the area of DNA analysis, free from the prosecutorial bias and scientific repression of the FBI.

The last post's discussion of how to handle police encounters reminded me of Chris Rock's dated but classic, sage advice on "how not to get your ass kicked by the police:"

I am very impressed with the attorney in this story from Albuquerque New Mexico, where civil rights attorney Dennis Montoya went to bat for his client, Curtis Slade. Slade had complaints about police abuse by the local authorities who were allegedly harassing him and had filed hundreds of complaints against Slade's gravel pit business.

The police contacted Montoya and lied, saying that they wanted to arrange a meeting with Slade and Montoya to discuss Slade's complaints, when their intent was to arrest Slade. When the police then claimed that they had a warrant for Slade's arrest, Montoya kicked them out of his office, and refused to turn over his client until they showed him the arrest warrant. He did not allow the officers to take his client until they had proven that the warrant was valid.

Regardless of the merits of Slade's claim, or the validity of the arrest warrant, the story illustrates how police will lie, even to an attorney, to get what they want. But more importantly, the story shows an attorney standing firm in the face of unethical conduct by police, and fighting for his client. I wonder how many attorneys would have just turned their client over when the cops came back claiming that they had a warrant.

In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, police beat a man in his cell after arresting him and charging him with DUI:

In New York, police officer body slams a woman. Do they teach this at the academy?

A compilation of South Carolina Highway Patrol videos that someone put together on youtube. There are a couple that I had not seen before:

The State news reports that Dennis Quinn of the Richland County Sheriff's Department was charged with hit and run, leaving the scene, driving under the influence, open container, and no insurance last night. He was fired from his job today as a result of the charges.

Although any law enforcement officer that is breaking the law, particularly as flagrant and brazen as these accusations indicate, makes me sick, he is innocent until proven guilty like every criminal defendant should be.

Firing before the charges are proven is harsh, but ok - I can't think of many things worse than a cop breaking the law. On the other hand, if a trooper commits attempted murder by purposefully running down a man with his patrol car, or ramming a fleeing motorcyclist head-on, they are not prosecuted and in the latter case are not fired, only ordered to a counseling session as punishment.

It is only one incident to compare and I don't know Richland County's track record, but possibly this highlights the difference between Richland County Sheriff's Department and the South Carolina Highway Patrol. Richland County gets rid of the bad egg before the publicity kills their image, and SCHP sweeps it under the rug, resulting in a culture of abuse and an ever increasing collection of incidents?

Believe it or not, cops will lie on the witness stand to get convictions and to cover their asses. For example, cops learn over time what statements will get them past a motion to suppress, those facts get copied and pasted from one incident report to another, and the cop will testify to them at trial. "I smelled the odor of burnt marijuana." (Whether or not weed is ultimately found.) "The subject appeared very nervous, fidgeting from foot to foot, would not make eye contact, began sweating profusely, and I noticed his hand was shaking as he took out his wallet."

When it is the defendant's word against the cops, the defendant typically loses. Because cops are trustworthy, credible witnesses(?). Defense lawyers know the cop is lying, the prosecutor knows the cop is lying, and the judge knows the cop is lying - they all have seen it enough times. But unless there is proof that the cop is lying, the judge will rule in the government's favor or the jury will take the cop's word for it.

In a trial last Friday in Los Angeles, the officers testified that they had chased the defendant from his apartment and watched him throw down a black box, which they picked up a few feet from the defendant and discovered that the box contained drugs. But they did not realize that the defense lawyer had obtained video of the incident from a surveillance camera, which showed multiple officers searching for more than 20 minutes before one claimed to have found drugs.

"Be creative in your writing," the officer appears to tell another after the discovery.

"Oh yeah, don't worry, sin duda [no doubt]," comes the reply.

This case just underscores the importance of an independent investigation - if the defense had not found this video, no-one would have believed the defendant and, although the defendant and possibly the attorney would have known that the cops were lying, they would not have been able to prove it.

There are a few officers that I have the utmost respect for that are candid and take painstaking care to tell the truth to me, to the prosecutor, and on the stand. And then there are the rest.

At Simple Justice, a transexual's face brutally attacks a Memphis cop's fist. Also a post on when police abuse happens to a cop, breaking down a D.C. circuit opinion in the case of Juan Johnson, who brought a 1983 claim against the District and another officer who kicked him repeatedly in the groin when the officer mistook Johnson for a criminal.

Windypundit argues with an anonymous idiot about whether or not it was good policing for a Lima, Ohio SWAT team to shoot and kill an unarmed mother holding her 1 year old child during a drug raid.

Abuse of the forfeiture laws is rampant in South Carolina. Anytime a vehicle is stopped and any amount of drugs is found along with money, law enforcement takes the money. Sometimes they take money from passengers. Sometimes they take the vehicle. I have seen cases where a roach was found in the ashtray of a car, and the officers took