A 15-year-old Harlem student claims she was roughed up, handcuffed, and detained by aggressive cops who mistakenly thought she was too old to be using a student MetroCard. “They called me liar,” Alexis Sumpter told the News of the July 26 incident. “Then they grabbed me by my arms and flung me up the stairs. I kept saying, ‘I’m only 15—why are you guys doing this?’ They said they didn’t owe me an explanation.”
Sumpter, who attends Harlem Village Academies, was on her way to her first day at a marketing internship on Canal Street when two plainclothes cops spotted her using her student MetroCard at the 125th Street Station. “They didn’t approach me in a calm manner and they were very rude the whole time,” she said. “They were talking to me like they were trying to show they were superior to me.” The DOE confirmed the card is valid until Aug. 17.
The cops demanded to know how old she was, but didn’t believe her when she said she was 15—she told them she didn’t have ID because she had recently been mugged for her iPhone and wallet. She says a third cop joined them, and pressed her face to a wall while the other two cuffed her. Cops called her father, who vouched that she was 15; still not believing her, they called her mother, who rushed over with her daughter’s birth certificate. Alexis was held in custody for 90 minutes altogether, and wasn’t arrested or given a summons; but she did go to the hospital because the handcuffs caused swelling on her wrists.
A young black Arkansas high school student shot in the head while double cuffed in rear seat of squad car. Police say the was death self inflicted with a concealed weapon despite 2 previous body searches.
A prosecutor in northern Michigan has cleared the police officer who shot and killed a Grayling man as police and Child Protective Services (CPS) employees attempted to seize his three-year-old. The attempted removal of the minor child came after a police officer who came to the scene on a call earlier that same day reported that he smelled marijuana and reported the incident to CPS authorities, who decided the child needed to be removed. The dead man, William Reddie, 32, becomes the 17th person killed in US domestic drug law enforcement operations so far this year.
Reddie’s killing took place on February 3, but we only became aware of it when news broke this week that prosecutors had decided that the police officer’s use of deadly force in the incident was justified.
According to the Crawford County Avalanche, Grayling police Officer Alan Somero was called to Reddie’s apartment for an alleged domestic disturbance. Somero made no arrests, but believed he smelled marijuana and reported it to CPS. Two CPS employees went to Reddie’s apartment to check on the situation. They then got a court order to remove Reddie’s 3-year-old son, Cameron, and asked police to escort them to the apartment to serve the court order.
[…] when police and CPS workers arrived to seize the child, Reddie then reportedly displayed a pocketknife and lunged at them. Crawford County Deputy John Klepadlo shot and killed him. Police had been deploying Tasers, but holstered them and grabbed their guns when Reddie displayed the knife.
Crawford County Sheriff Kirk Wakefield then asked the Michigan State Police to investigate his deputy’s use of deadly force. The Michigan Attorney General’s Office referred the case to the neighboring Roscommon County Prosecutor’s Office. After receiving a report from the State Police, Roscommon County DA Mark Jernigan determined that the use of deadly force was justified and that Klepadlo would not be charged with any crime.
[…] Toxicology reports, which were included in the final investigation, showed there was no marijuana or alcohol in Reddie’s system when he was killed.
[…] Cameron Reddie is now in foster care. His father’s family is seeking visitation rights.
Meanwhile, Deputy Klepadlo, who had been on administrative leave after the shooting, is back on the job.
“Out of a whopping 532 summonses issued to New York City students to appear in court during the last three months of 2011, the Bronx alone accounted for nearly half of all cases. 63% of those summonses were for charges of “disorderly conduct.”
Unbelievably, 93.5% of the nearly 300 students arrested in the same time period were either Black or Latino - and here too, the Bronx topped the list as the borough with the highest percentage of school-based arrests.”
they abducting the children from my community
This is a problem in more than just the Bronx and it needs to be addressed. These zero-tolerance policies do not work and are criminalizing just being a kid.
Minority students are much more likely to receive discipline than white students and Black individuals, who make up only 18% of the U.S. population, serve 35% of the first-time detentions. White teachers are also more likely than Black teachers to refer minority students to special education classes.
An Education Department spokesman noted that many suspensions are the result of zero-tolerance policies, which require automatic suspensions for certain first-time offenses. But in some cases, the spokesman said, those policies are instituted at largely African American schools by African American principals, and the department doesn’t mean to imply that any form of prejudice is involved. Except that’s what it led the public to believe.
If the real question is how often schools suspend students — which obviously affects black students more than other groups — the answer is simple: far too often. Ordinarily, the public thinks of zero tolerance as invoking consequences for drugs or weapons. But in recent years, it has been applied in alarming numbers to much less serious violations — especially disruptive behavior. The idea is that by removing the troublemaker for a day or more, the school becomes a calmer place where others can achieve.
It makes sense in theory, but subsequent studies have cast doubt on whether it works that way. A 2008 report by a task force of the American Psychological Assn. concluded that suspensions haven’t provided any of the benefits educators had expected.
For more than two years, Adrian Schoolcraft secretly recorded every roll call at the 81st Precinct in Brooklyn and captured his superiors urging police officers to do two things in order to manipulate the “stats” that the department is under pressure to produce: Officers were told to arrest people who were doing little more than standing on the street, but they were also encouraged to disregard actual victims of serious crimes who wanted to file reports.
Arresting bystanders made it look like the department was efficient, while artificially reducing the amount of serious crime made the commander look good.
In October 2009, Schoolcraft met with NYPD investigators for three hours and detailed more than a dozen cases of crime reports being manipulated in the district. Three weeks after that meeting—which was supposed to have been kept secret from Schoolcraft’s superiors—his precinct commander and a deputy chief ordered Schoolcraft to be dragged from his apartment and forced into the Jamaica Hospital psychiatric ward for six days.
Between 1909 and 1912, Detective Inspector Robert Mather of the Manchester Police kept scrupulous notes on 65 characters from the city’s criminal underworld, including Samuel Searson, a.k.a. Samuel Jackson, who most recently served six months for “stealing silver shields” and three elaborately coiffed individuals labelled as “brothel thieves.”
Their offences ranged from pickpocketing and “housebreaking” (burglary) to stealing pigeons, trousers and a “dressing case;” identifying marks included scars and, in one case, “three dots right forearm.”
DI Mather’s 57-page pocket notebook is set to go on sale on March 27 at Bonhams auctioneers in London; it’s expected to go for between £800 and £1,200 pounds (from $1,260 to $1,890).
Citizens of Covington, TX are living in fear of police accused of using their influence to operate a drug ring and arrest and terrorize citizens who speak out against their activities.
“They are scared to death now,” said Covington City Council member Marty Smith. “They lock their doors, they lock the car doors because they are scared of the police.”
Covington Police Chief Wade Laurence has emerged in the center of the accusations,WFAA.com reports.
“Wade Lawrence asked me what it was going to take to shut me up, and them to arrest me and handcuff me at a council meeting,” Smith said. “I’m 69 years old and I don’t need the hassle of it.”
WFAA spoke to former Covington police officer Kayla Richardson who said the trouble began one year ago when she discovered drugs missing from the police evidence locker. Police Chief Laurence was the only officer who didn’t take a lie detector test.
Richardson filed a report against the department with the Texas Rangers, but it was never investigated. When Chief Laurence discovered Richardson filed a report against him, she was fired.
Soon after, the arrests of her boyfriend and a former mayor were ordered. WFAA reports that Richardson’s boyfriend was charged with assault and the ex-mayor with credit card abuse. Both are saying the arrests were out of retaliation.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.
You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren’t crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don’t be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.
2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.
It’s always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that’s no reason to say “yes” to the search. Basically, if there’s any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.
If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said “no” to the search.
3. Saying “no” can prevent a search altogether.
Data on police searches are interesting, but they don’t show how many searches didn’t happen because a citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.
I know refusing searches works because I’ve been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there’s a good chance they’ll back down, because it’s a waste of time to do searches that won’t hold up in court anyway.
4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.
Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can’t count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.
5. You never know what they’ll find.
Are you 100 percent certain there’s nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn’t yours, and they’ll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can’t challenge the evidence. But if you’re innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.
Remember that knowing your rights will help you protect yourself, but no amount of preparation can guarantee a good outcome in a bad situation. Your attitude and your choices before, during, and after the encounter will usually matter more than your knowledge of the law. Stay calm no matter what happens, and remember that you can always report misconduct after things settle down.
Finally, please don’t be shy about sharing this information with your friends and family. Understanding and asserting your rights isn’t about getting away with anything, and it isn’t about disrespecting police either. These rights are the foundation of freedom in America, and they get weaker whenever we fail to exercise them.