The fact that you come to a criminal defense blog to converse with knuckleheads like me says a lot about you brother, and as different as we are you've earned my respect.

I've also worked four Secret Service Presidential VIP protection missions for three Presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton), one mission for Pope John Paul II, and for numerous candidates during campaign seasons with the TSD division of the Secret Service while I was active duty.

Yes, after my 10 years in the AF, I went into law enforcement at "po-dunk pd", and because the department had such a high turnover rate, I made FTO in 2 years and Sergeant in 5 years (which I spent 1 year as Shift Sergeant).  I made Sergeant specifically because with my military background and EOD experience, I had already been placed in hazardous situations having to make those tough decisions that could mean life or death.  

I was also making $34,000/yr supervising 7 officers when our shift was full, which was almost never.  When I left LE and went back to being a bomb technician, I STARTED at $68,000/yr or double my LE salary as a Sgt. and that was at the ENTRY LEVEL.  When I went back to Iraq in 2006... well... let's just say it was real good money... six figures... just not SO good I was willing to die there.

But, I am going to take issue with some of your comments, especially given the history of your disparaging remarks towards me, which I tried real hard to ignore.

I took him to task specifically because of his stated experience...Which I know, from experience, doesn't mean much to the usuals who post here, but someone may read his posts and think he speaks with some authority on the matter because of it.

Now, let's get something straight.  I graduated the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in 1996 3rd in my class (a distinguished graduate).  I also won the Clifford A. Moyer Marksmanship Award (or, "top gun" on the range).  I spent 6 years on the road.  2 of those years I was training rookies as an FTO and 1 of those years I was the shift Sergeant, so, yes, I DO speak with some knowledge and authority on matters concerning law enforcement, whether YOU like it or not, believe it or not, or RESPECT IT or not.  

I have to admit, I'm a bit flattered by the fact that this thread even exists, so thanks for that.  I've been a lot of things during my career, dope cop was one of my assignments as was marijuana eradication.  I've been a training officer, swat cop, sergeant, lieutenant, and even an acting chief deputy (Which at that department was the highest rank one could achieve without an election).  I left all that this past April for a chance to start over and have less of a burden on my wife and two young daughters.  I'm currently a plain ole deputy for a mid-sized sheriff's department in Norcal.

What you say here may well be true, and I have no reason to doubt it.  I also know that for Sheriff Departments, when a new sheriff is elected, the top brass at the department usually get the ax because he/she wants to bring in their own Lt's and above at LEAST, if not Sgt's as well.  So, you may well have left being Chief Deputy because you wanted to go back to being just a deputy again, or, you could have had a new sheriff elected and really had little choice.  I don't care, personally.  What I DO care about is your continued attitude that simply BECAUSE you have all this experience, you MUST be right and can put "lower people" in their place and disparage them.  Let me explain to you just how well that worked while I was active duty EOD.

We had an E-8 that was our superintendent and a Captain that was our OIC in charge of our shop at Incirlik AB, Turkey.  Now, a reasonable person might expect that an 18 year Captain and a 20+ year career SMSGT would know their job.  In 1991, Air Force regulation allowed EOD units overseas to do the base fireworks displays.  By 1993, only certified contractors could do the base fireworks display.  Wanna guess why?  Because an E-7, E-6 and myself (an E-4 at that time) told the E-8 that the display one year was a bad op and needed to be aborted, but, he decided for POLITICAL reasons the display would go as planned.  He put four of my buddies in trauma that night WHEN the op went bad, just as we told him it would.  So, merely having the experience doesn't mean that the right decisions are always being made by those individuals.

You think an officer punching a kid in the face is ok... fine... you do.  I don't.  I also didn't allow my officers to cuss at a suspect or disparage/demean them.  It was uncalled for and unnecessary, and yes, I DID have a rookie who tried it... ONCE... and yes, he almost DID get kicked off the shift because of it on my word.  But, my Lt. was old school and flat told me that as Sergeant it was my shift to run until we ran into something he didn't feel I had the experience to handle.  

Yes, every report came across my desk before it was submitted and yes many reports were rewritten until I was satisfied that every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed correctly, so yes, I believe I can look at others reports and critique them quite adequately.

Yes, we did get complaints as well, and I got a LOT of them.  Not for cussing at people, not for excessive force, but because people didn't like my tone of voice and thought I was "rude" to them.

I'm sure you also know that disorderly conduct and trespass after notice are the two most abused laws on the books.  I know that for a fact and it really doesn't matter what department it is.  When cops have nothing else to charge you with, and they want you in jail, they arrest you for one or the other... mainly its DC.  I got tired of watching it happen and, as I told you before, it almost happened to ME when the deputy showed up to the argument I had with the counter lady at the County Administration office.

We can disagree on what is reasonable and what isn't, what are good tactics and what aren't, and what constitutes excessive force.  You may have allowed your deputies to pull what I consider to be garbage, but, I didn't put up with it on my shift.  

I never claimed to know it all... only that I have been there, done it, seen it, and I CAN speak knowledgeably about the subject BECAUSE I have been there, done it, seen it.  Yes, I can also speak with authority on it as well.  I never claimed to have umpteen thousand years of experience, I flat said I spent 6 years in law enforcement.  I have also seen how many officers treat people, ESPECIALLY suspects/subjects, and frankly, I got disgusted with it.  

The police chief of Fort Pierce, like many others, will stick up for their officers, that doesn't mean what the officer did was right; it just means that I haven't seen many who wouldn't.  What happens behind closed doors is a whole different story, however.

And it isn't reasonable suspicion to make an arrest... it is probable cause:

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984).

As for the clothes the girl was carrying in the bag:

In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

What "facts" did he have?  

- the clothes still had their tags on them and she  didn't have a receipt on her.

YOU may believe that would lead a "man of reasonable caution" to believe they were stolen.  I don't.  In my opinion, the seizure was unreasonable since those were the only facts he had.

Lastly... there may well be more incidents upon which we agree, or some where we disagree, but I'd expect you to leave the attitude and disparagement out of it.

• Call came in of suspicious person in offices and description.
  
• I responded with a second vehicle.
  
• I stopped an individual matching that description walking on the sidewalk carrying a vcr while the second unit went to the offices.
  
• The office personnel had no idea if anything was missing or not (not even vcr's), nor, did any office personnel agree to do a drive-by to ID the person I stopped as the person they saw in their offices.
  
• Given that I had absolutely zero facts to dispute the man's claim that the vcr was his, I had to release the man with the vcr.

No, it wasn't that I found this diary "demeaning", as I posted to Jeralyn, I expected at some point that my credentials would be questioned so I sent her as good of evidence of them as I could just so when it did happen, at least she was aware that it wasn't just an internet wannabe who was a cop one day and an astronaut the next.

As for the discussion and progression of it, I only had to watch the video to see that, in my opinion, it was already excessive force.  But, the discussion turned from that issue alone to other issues.  As the report got released, etc, and more information became available, then even more questions arose for me as to this officers conduct.  I was also looking at it from two standpoints; first as an officer, second as to how a lawyer could rip this officer to shreds in court if the family sued the department and city.  THAT progressed to whose badge was bigger and who might not be because (fill in this part).

I have no problem defending officers when I see, in my opinion, that they are clearly following acceptable procedures (the Florida student taser case that I have posted to here is a good example).  I also have no problem raking an officer over the coals when he, again in my opinion, clearly is in the wrong (this case of the girl getting punched and THEN sprayed).

In my eyes, the officer handled the incident as I've seen other officers do; they hone in on the property and everything else be damned... INCLUDING the rights of the person.  I pretty much deduced that the minute I read where there was clothes in a bag with the tags still on it.

But, bad tactics and approaching the situation with the mindset that everyone gets cuffed all the time simply because you have a badge is exactly why these cases keep occurring.

The girl was zero threat.  He had no need to cuff her at all during the investigative stop in my opinion, and by NOT doing so, the situation would have likely played out differently.  Also, by Florida law, if it was her first curfew offense, she wasn't even open to arrest, merely a written warning and sent packing home (though, I would have given her a ride home at that time in the morning WITH the clothes).  The FIRST thing the officer should have done is establish who she was, how old she was, why she was there.  THEN, upon learning her age, radioed the department to see if she had any prior warning for curfew violation on file.  If she did and this was her second time, arrest her right then and transport.  THEN if she resists, fine... she does.  But, even his procedure for arresting her and cuffing her was sloppy.  You don't put people over your car or against a wall to cuff them... you are merely giving them purchase to push off of TO resist, which is EXACTLY what happened.  

Was the officers actions "reasonable"?  Not to me.  It was his own actions that generated the problem.  To ME, THAT is not reasonable at all.  Simply by using different tactics, the incident could have been avoided totally, or at worst, any resistance dealt with in a more professional manner consistent with generally approved use-of-force continuum's (ie, she tries to bite, back off, spray her, regain control... or... iron-wristlock takedown to the ground, cuff).  But punching her THEN spraying her?  Nope.  Totally unreasonable to me.

What the Police Chief says is suspect right off the bat because 99.9% of the Chief's, Sheriff's, etc, are GOING to back their officers unless it so grossly out there, even THEY can't defend it (notice that the department backed the officers who beat Rodney King).  I've even seen some judges back officers in court all day long as long as their testimony was right (remember the disorderly cases I mention above).  Only ONCE did I watch a judge dress down a deputy in court, but he screwed up so bad even WE couldn't believe it.  

OMG... you are such a good cop!!!!

What was it you said?  That a few coins and you can buy a cup of coffee? (I really am lmao)

You found me out!  I'm exposed now.  Not only have I posted under my real name... I've actually made posts on the internet under a moniker.  What a cop you are!  Let me buy you a cup of coffee!

I guess it's now time for me to "bare my soul" since your police work over an internet has exposed me.

I run the blog The Motley Patriot.  Ooooooo... what a crime THAT is!  I have my own blog!!!!  OMG... I am SOOOO exposed!!!!!  And I never told anyone here... omg... arrest me!

I have signed up as a 9/11 truther!!!!  OMG... I'm going to Guantanamo!  I'll be in good company though... but... you found me out!  What investigative work THAT was!  I mean, come on... I'm a 19 year bomb tech who only watched WTC 7 drop in its footprint and only said "damn, looked like a controlled demolition to ME!"  Of course, I'm not the ONLY one who has said the commission's report left out holes.  I can bring out ex-administration officials, ex-CIA agents, and others, who have called for a REAL investigation that, like me, want that real investigation.  But you found me out!

(ok... dying here)

And... OMG... I even posted on dailykos as motleypatriot... which is the same moniker as my personal blog... I mean... omg... how much worse can you get!!!!

Except... what did you run to?

Did you acknowledge that, as a cop, it ISN'T reasonable suspicion that is the litmus test, but, probable cause to arrest?  Oh no... you HAD to "out" me!  Did you acknowledge that there was, in fact, a California law that could be abused, and most likely has been?  A law you claimed, with your 20+ years a Chief Deputy you had ZERO knowledge of even existed?  NOPE.  You had to try, ONCE AGAIN, character assassination.

Congratulations...

You have now moved into the realm of not discussing law enforcement... or differences... but the EXACT mode that right-wingers pull; if all else fails, denegrate, assassinate, try to destroy.

Oh... you are SUCH a good cop... you can do a google on my real name... and actually find where I made posts over the internet... well congratulations.

Here... you missed this... which is exactly what I sent Jeralyn:

http://www.hazdevcon.com/

Yep.  My personal consulting firm.  Not SUCH a good cop you caught THAT one, though.  No, you want to move right to character assassination, and have been trying to do that every step of the way.

So, congratulations Mr. "I have so much experience in law enforcement that I've done it all but had no clue about a CA penal code (415) that could be abused".

Oh, but, you cry, there are so many people in San Diego!

That wasn't what I brought out... only YOUR reply to it.  I brought out the statute exists, that the wording of it DOES leave it open to the very abuse I said was there, and you ran to a whole different argument.  Why?  I'll tell you why.

IF you're an ex-Chief Deputy, you know the abuses that have occurred.  But, can't SAY it can you?  I can.  I will.  I'm tired of LE acting as they have been.  

But, the main point is there... there IS a statute that leaves it open... and you, supposedly, had NO CLUE of it.  No, not in your 20+ years of law enforcement did you know of THIS statute and its wording.  Right.  

No... when backed into the corner... you went right to discrediting.  Destroy the man!  You may remember... this is a LIBERAL blog... they've SEEN this very thing time and again by right-wingers.  And... you jumped on it.  Says more than I could... doesn't it.

20+ years... but... had no clue it was probable cause to arrest.. not merely reasonable suspicion... right.  A rookie knows its probable cause to arrest.

Now... attack... it's all you do.  It's all you have left.  I'm "exposed" for who I am.  But, I exposed myself... you didn't... I'm already posting here under my own name... you merely brought out when I posted under a moniker.  And, omg, that I'm a 9/11 truther.  How many here are?  I don't know.  Do you?

But you didn't.

YOU said it was reasonable suspicion.

You can claim to be many things, to have done many things, and that you know many things... but your own words betray you.

I wasn't even out of the academy when I knew probable cause was the standard.  But, with your 20+ years... you don't?