Lying Cops?

Cops' alleged lie leaves 17 cases in jeopardy, Seattle Times, March 30, 2007.

Two Seattle bicycle officers arrested a man on a drug charge. After he was released a few hours later, he complained about their conduct. Among other things, he said that they had also handcuffed and detained another man -- a fact not mentioned in their report. The officers denied it, but a store surveillance tape showed that they had done it. So the police department is investigating them.

The department has also taken the unusual step of sending a letter to defense counsel in 17 cases where the officers could be witnesses, alerting them to possible problems with the officers' credibility.

An SPD spokesperson cautions people not to jump to conclusions and the president of the police union says the incident has been blown out of proportion.

One of the officers has been accused by defense attorneys of lying in the past. Two defamation cases he filed in response were dismissed.

Update: Drug suspect released; trial delayed, Seattle Times, March 31, 2007.

• In one federal case, an alleged drug dealer has been released until the investigation of the officers has been completed.
• In another federal case, a trial was delayed from April 2 to May 14.
• 15 cases in King County Superior Court, most involving cocaine possession, may be affected.

Update: NAACP calls for outside probe of Seattle officers, Seattle Times, April 4, 2007.

Lying Cops Issue Heats Up

Last month, a couple of police officers were caught in a lie -- they didn't report that they had handcuffed and questioned a suspect other than the one they booked, but a store's security tape showed that they had. The prosecutor's office thought it was serious enough that it sent a letter to defense attorneys for other defendants arrested by the pair of officers (Greg Neubert and Michael Tietjen). (See earlier posts.)

New developments:

• Expert takes issue with cops' reports, Seattle Times, May 10, 2007. Expert's review of videotape shows many inconsistencies between the officers' report and what happened.
• Judge may give access to cop video, Seattle Times, May 8, 2007.

  [D]uring a hearing Monday, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer said that she probably will let defense attorneys in at least nine cases involving the two officers to have access to the video and other information from the internal investigation.
  
  * * *
  
  "I'm inclined to find that, based on the officer accounts and the videotape taken together, that there is a sufficient showing" that the information is relevant for the defense in the other cases, the judge said.
  
  Shaffer pointed out that this is an unusual — if not unique — instance because of the existence of a video that can be used to test the officers' statements.

  According to the article, Judge Shaffer will issue a formal ruling today. (Judge Shaffer is also a UW Trial Ad instructor.)

Update (May 12): Judge Shaffer did issue her ruling: 2 officers' reports on arrest questioned, Seattle Times, May 12, 2007.

On Friday, Shaffer said she closely reviewed the tape, read the officers' arrest reports and statements to the department's Office of Professional Conduct, "and they really don't square in any significant way."

The judge said she found a scathing report by a defense-hired forensic analyst who reviewed the videotape to be credible. The expert, Grant Fredericks, a former police officer and FBI lecturer, challenged the officers' version of the arrest from start to finish.

"I don't see trivial discrepancies," Shaffer said. "I think that there are a lot of discrepancies. I find it concerning."