Seattle has some serious problems with its police department. A recent DOJ report found that police brutality was rampant in the city, and now an officer has been caught on tape telling an innocent man that he was going to make up evidence to arrest him for theft.
Josh Lawson and Christopher Franklin were arrested at gunpoint in November of 2010 after police spotted them several blocks away from where an assault had been reported. Neither man was charged with any crime after their arrest, and they have sued the city for excessive force and wrongful arrest.
Both men allegedly suffered facial bruises after being kicked and thrown on the pavement as the police officers arrested them. While Lawson and Franklin were being taken to the police department, one of the officers also said he was going to make up evidence against them, an audio recording obtained KOMO 4 News revealed.
“Well, you’re going to jail for robbery that’s all,” the officer said.
“For robbery?” Franklin asked.
“Yeah, I’m gonna make stuff up,” the officer responded.
And the department did an “investigation” and found that the office hadn’t done anything wrong. It’s on tape.
13 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Ray Ingles
February 17, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s worse than that. It seems the dash cam was switched off when the arrestees were injured.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/seattle-arrest-questions-cops-dash-cams/story?id=15595576
But it’s okay, what the cop said was just “banter”…
BobApril
February 17, 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Won’t this tape be considered relevant evidence for every case this officer has been or will be involved in, for his entire career? Wouldn’t this provide “reasonable doubt” concerning any evidence this cop has ever had access to? Even if the powers that be don’t want to stop this sort of behavior because it is disgusting in and of itself – surely, a few criminals going free would be reason enough to discourage it.
MikeMa
February 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You say an investigation found nothing wrong? Its a wonder they can solve any crime at all in Seattle.
Criminal alert! Seattle police investigations aren’t worth shit. Commit crimes there.
lordshipmayhem
February 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Seattle. Home of exorbitant coffee consumption. Home of Starbucks.
The cops there drink too much coffee. It makes you do goofy shit.
Switch the cops to tea. Irish breakfast tea, Earl Grey tea, Japanese green tea, doesn’t matter. Tea.
(Yep – every case this cop has ever been involved with is going to be appealed based upon this tape.)
eric
February 17, 2012 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
IANAL but AFAIK, excepting miranda rights, access to lawyer, etc… it is not illegal for police to lie to the folks they arrest (about other stuff). If you are in an interrogation room and they say they found evidence that you did such-and-such a crime, they could just be lying to provoke a confession. I’m guessing that this could fall under that guideline.
But I’d be interested in an attorney’s answer. Any lawyers out there want to say whether evidence of past corruption would be allowed in future cases because they go to credibility?
I guess that’s a three-parter: (i) would such past behavior be admitted if the person wasn’t a police officer, (ii) was a police officer and (iii) if the answers to i and ii are different, why?
Chris from Europe
February 17, 2012 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
OT:
Ariz. police officer who fatally shot suspect Tuesday has killed at least 5 while on duty
Abby Normal
February 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I used to work with a programmer who joked with me at lunch one day that he doesn’t document his code because it provided him job security. It wasn’t true. He documented as much as any of us. But an executive overheard him and he was fired that same day. Simply contributing to an environment where that sort thinking was a joking matter was too big a liability to the company. We live and die by our data and the idea that someone would hold it hostage was taken very seriously. Would that the police showed half that level of professionalism when it comes to protect not just data, but our liberty.
Bronze Dog
February 17, 2012 at 1:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pretty much what I’m thinking. If a guilty man goes free because of such reasonable doubt, I’d frame it as the cop’s dishonest character nullifying the prosecution. To me, he’s not much different from an accomplice.
Artor
February 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Abby Normal
That would be a good analogy, except that this cop had just arrested someone for whom he had no evidence they had committed a crime, and beaten them, which is a crime. He’d already turned off his dash-cam, which should be grounds for a suspension right there.
If your colleague had just erased a bunch of documentation while abusing your clients when he made his remark, that would be more in line with what’s going on here.
paul
February 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rather that being considered relevant to every arrest this cop has made, I suspect that instead the tape will be inadmissible. The good news is that in more and more states they can’t jail you just for making the tape; that doesn’t me they have to allow it as evidence, though.
rwgate
February 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Seattle has had problems with its police force for years. My uncle was a 27 year veteran of the Georgetown district in Seattle, and he always talked about how the police would protect each other against any civilian.
In 1971, Seattle police were caught on film trying to smash a KING-TV photographers camera during a student protest in the University District (Univ. of Wash.) I was the graphics editor of the UofW Daily at the time, and my photographers came back telling how they were attacked by plainclothes officers. Numerous police officers lost their jobs after that incident.
Plus ca change?
Ace of Sevens
February 17, 2012 at 6:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I’m reading this right, it’s okay to pretend like you’re going to frame someone to get the to confess or quit talking back or whatever, so long as you don’t actually do it.
tuxedocartman
February 18, 2012 at 12:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That does seem to be the case, which really has me wondering what are the upper limits on what’s permissible with this? Okay, so you can threaten falsifying evidence to secure a conviction. What about threatening to drive over to the suspect’s mother’s house for some one-on-one time? Ya know, so long as you don’t actually rape her. Doesn’t seem that much worse, really, so why not?
New professionalism my ass.
Maybe take the police out dancing, show them a good time « Cubik's Rube
February 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] (h/t Ed Brayton) [...]