Only a week after the DOJ released a report that found Seattle police officers were guilty of misconduct in 20% of all uses of force by the department comes this story, where an officer allegedly got so out of line that the man he had pulled over called 911 to make sure he was a real cop.
A local man called the cops on Seattle officers when he felt a traffic stop was spinning out of control – and the entire incident was captured on a police video that shows the man being yanked from his car and thrown to the ground…
The video shows Seattle police pulling a car over for speeding, then one officer walking up to the driver who was pulled over.
Although the dashboard camera captured the incident, the officer did not wear his microphone – a violation of department policy.
Once stopped, the driver, Amanuel Gebreselassie, says the talk went bad from the beginning.
“He’s using profanity. He’s not acting professional. He’s just not acting like an officer,” says Gebreselassie.
In their report, police said the driver was “extremely verbally aggressive.” But Gebreselassie denies it – and says the stop seemed so out of line, he called 911.
An audiotape of the 911 call recorded the conversation between Gebreselassie and the 911 dispatcher.
“911. What are you reporting?” the dispatcher says.
“Uhh, an illegal stop by an officer – you know, I just want to make sure he’s a real officer. … There’s an officer here, but he’s talking crazy to me, and I’m not really dealing with this guy.”
The conversation was cut short when a group of officers returned to the car.
“Get out of the car,” one officer can be heard saying on the 911 tape.
“For what?”
“Get out of the car, man.”
Police say Gebresellassie resisted, so they yanked him to the ground.
In the video, one officer appears to deliver a sharp kick – but it’s unclear where it lands.
The officers then performed an illegal search of the car. The department reprimanded three officers for the illegal search but did nothing about the violence inflicted on the man. Balko suggests a perfectly reasonable policy:
I propose a rule for cases like these: Any time a police officer inappropriately turns off his dash cam, turns off his uniform microphone, or illegally confiscates other audio or video of an incident which then ends up missing or destroyed, the courts will begin considering any disputed facts about the incident with a presumption that the citizen’s account is the correct one.
I couldn’t agree more.
8 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Bronze Dog
January 2, 2012 at 12:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d definitely agree with such a policy. The only coherent rationale I can come up with for turning off their recording devices is premeditation of a crime they want to hide.
Abbot nigelTheBold of the Hoppist Monks
January 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bronze Dog:
There are other, though less-likely, scenarios too: malfunctioning equipment, dead batteries in the equipment, and so on.
If this policy were in place, it would definitely behoove the officers to inspect their equipment before use.
Sounds like a good policy to me.
Pteryxx
January 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Malfunctioning equipment” has been claimed often enough as a response to accusations of police brutality. It might happen, sure, but it wouldn’t invalidate the rule.
Olav
January 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gebreselassie is an Ethiopian name. So the guy was almost certainly black. Does anything else surprise you about this fact?
organon
January 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well done.
Pinky
January 2, 2012 at 11:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I believe most police who use radar, will go through a prescribed equipment check at the start of each shift. If radar can be made as reliable as most people and courts think it is then recording equipment should also have as much attention paid to it.
At a traffic stop officers will either call into their dispatch or use in-car computers to gather information to lessen the chance of walking into danger when approaching the driver, I think a few seconds during that period could be found to do a quick audio & video check.
Radar took the guess work out of determining speed, recording equipment would be a firm backup of an officer’s account.
I would like to hear the argument against recording police. I would particularly like to read what the police officers who are or will soon be recorded as they work with the public, have to say.
RH
January 3, 2012 at 12:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Unfortunately such a policy would violate presumption of innocence for the officers so you would need a constitutional amendment.
However a uniformed officer’s account could be ruled inadmissible if video or audio was missing.
Chris from Europe
January 3, 2012 at 12:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@RH
But a law exposing the officer to civil damages wouldn’t be unconstitutional.
best of luck
January 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Informative and precise…
Its hard to find informative and precise information but here I found…