False Arrest Suit

[CdwJava]

The chief will see the pattern, in my opinion, and will know, intuitively, that it's true. It remains to be seen, what constrains his official response will be.

Once more, the pattern does not prove the current conduct. If he tried to use that as his sole support for the discipline, he'd end up on the losing end of a lawsuit and the neighbor/officer might well be rewarded at the city's expense down the road.

This is an area of law I deal with regularly - I know what I'm talking about here. Personnel issues are a mine field of liability if not done within the law.

He sprayed willfully, deliberately and maliciously. He and his son were robustly laughing and enjoying spraying the neighbor.

If asked, I'm going to guess that he would deny this. Then any outside observer is left once more with two conflicting accounts with family members supporting their loved one's version.

How does a "sworn police officer" make a conscious decision to spray/batter someone with water?

He shouldn't. But whether or not he SHOULD do something is a far cry from holding him accountable for something where there is no evidence of the act.

The DA considered my case and elected not to file charges. We move on to the neighbor/cop's agency's consideration of a complaint against him. 3 adult witnesses say he sprayed/battered me with water. Are you ignoring 3 witnesses?

No. But, it's not a math game, it's a credibility game. Your family says he sprayed you maliciously, and his family will say he didn't. Again, it may not even matter as being an ass of a neighbor may not be sufficient for his employer to do anything. But, if the agency has acted on your prior complaints, then perhaps they have managed to find the nexus before and can do it again. As I said, it's not impossible, it is just something that has to be well articulated.

The neighbor/cop was seen by 3 witnesses and WAS NOT PRESENT when the police arrived thought the time they left. What's that tell you? 3 witnesses are lying or he sprayed told his wife to call and disappeared. 3 witnesses saw him and the police did NOT see him. He's here; he's not here.

What it tells me is that he was not present when the officers showed up. I can infer what I want, but it is not proof of anything other than he was not present when the officers arrived. You seem to be failing to grasp the concept of proof versus inference. Proof is tangible, an inference is something reasoned based upon experience and belief. However, inference is not admissible in court. Facts, not opinions, are all that can be entered. Thus, in court, WHY he was gone could not be considered as evidence only the fact that he was not present could be (if testified to by one of the parties).

I'll try again and here's the nexus. "I will keep my PERSONAL (i.e. off duty) LIFE UNSULLIED as an example to all." Come on. That's clear as a bell.

And, once more, the Peace Officer's Code of Ethics is not a legally binding document in California. We can NOT hold an officer accountable to the Code of Ethics unless accompanied by policies and procedures that are legally enforceable. There is a general catch-all in most P&P manuals that includes unprofessional conduct and that would be where the activity might be categorized. But I could NEVER raise the Code of Ethics in an IA complaint unless I wanted the city to lose in a subsequent appeal of the discipline.

Carl, when this Jekyll and Hyde applied for employment at two local police agencies, they each sent a representative to my door to get my opinion of the "neighbor." They got information on the neighbor/cop from many neighbors. THEY DID NOT HIRE HIM.

That could be for many reasons. Chances are if he is an idiot to you, he is an idiot to others. Rarely are these things contained in a bubble. A person is rarely an idiot to only one person. My guess is that co-workers also have problems with him. It could also be that he did not do well in a psych. exam ... or that he failed to score high enough to be considered for employment. There could be a number of reasons why they did not hire him. And if he is an ass to you, he is likely an ass to others and no agency wants to take that liability on.

- Carl

 

[Eekamouse]

Three utter stranger witnesses or three biased witnesses that the cops gave no credibility to? I agree with Outonbail, you're the jerk in this situation and likely the neighbor from hell for everyone on your street. The cops have probably been out to your house many times for other matters involving other neighbors you can't get along with prior to this cop moving in. I bet there is a very long history of you being the ass of the neighborhood that everyone wishes would move.

 

[Johnmelissa]

You Make The Call

I am acquainted with your bona fides, Carl. I'm just hoping you don't send me a bill for this protracted session.

Again, my wife was standing in the garage watching. She saw. She knows. This is where the Nintendo Video Game aspect fits in. The neighbor/cop said to his son, "there's the Gargoyle. The Gargoyle is watching us." This is a character in the video games they play together. They were playing a video game, Carl. Having fun. His mother once said in a city council meeting (can you believe it - to the mayor et.al.), "you're just mad because my son has more toys than you." They have every OHV (nuisance) known to man, all the video game apparatuses, the ski boat, the 40' RV, motor cycles, sand rails - everything. It's GAME time. My wife watched them playing the SPRAYING game and he acknowledged her presence and observation. She is an incontravertable witness.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Are you kidding me? The lies he will be forced into to keep this story together will be undone if not by himself then certainly by his young son. He and his son were working, and spraying together, even putting the cover on the RV. How will his son ever keep the story line straight? Then there are the cops who never saw the neighbor/cop. He's here; he's not here Carl, you know that testimony must make it consistently and uninterrupted from beginning to end.

I've endeavored to present the fact that there is a documented 7 year history of antagonistic behavior bordering the illegal on the part of the neighbor/cop. At the time he applied for employment at the two local agencies, LAPD and LACSD, a law suit popped up. I had to sue him for damage to my fence. One of my many attorneys thought he was a gangster and was terrified of him (he was afraid to follow him out to the court parking lot) and the other thought the neighbor/cop was beaten up a lot in high school and responded by becoming a cop. My opinion is simply that he cannot control his anger. In the DA's office hearing, the neighbor/cop's wife said that she was going to, get this from HIS WIFE, "rein him in on washing the mud into our driveway." She's going to rein him in to the DA. 3 days later the guy washes all the dirt and debris he can get into our driveway. He did not respect a judge's COURT ORDER and he did not respect the DA this week. He can't control his anger and he has no fear of authority (he must be in a union).

Let's make a bet, Carl, coffee and a doughnut. I say the Chief sustains. You say it's unfounded or anything other than sustained. The last investigation that resulted in 3 sustained complaints, took 6 months. It may be a while.

Thanks again.

 

[CdwJava]

Again, my wife was standing in the garage watching. She saw. She knows.

Her testimony would be evidence. However, ANYONE's testimony is evidence - even a liar's. All testimony is given whatever value the listener wants to ascribe to it. To an outsider her testimony will likely be suspect based upon her relationship to yours as will your neighbor's son's testimony. The nature of the beast with both personnel complains and criminal trials is that you assume close friends and family will support their loved one/friend even to the point of lying. Unless the neighbor and his son come off as completely unbelievable, it is very possible that an outside observer will be presented with two contradictory points of view and thus no solid decision to make.

She is an incontravertable witness.

And witnesses can be countered. They can also lie. Even if telling the truth, a witness can be countered with other testimony. She says it happened, the neighbor might say it did not happen. Who is to be believed by an outsider who does not know either of you? You think it should be you ... well, what if you were or your wife were lying? Should you be the one believed just because you say it's true? It doesn't work that way.

The lies he will be forced into to keep this story together will be undone if not by himself then certainly by his young son.

Maybe. But if he keeps it simple by saying, "I didn't do it," then it gets tough. The best lie is a simple one that parallels the truth. The personnel investigation cannot compel the witnesses to say anything. The only person that can be compelled to make a statement in a personnel matter in CA involving an is the officer himself - and even THAT compulsion is now suspect thanks to a recent court ruling by the oft-overturned 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then there are the cops who never saw the neighbor/cop. He's here; he's not here Carl, you know that testimony must make it consistently and uninterrupted from beginning to end.

His presence is irrelevant. So he walked inside after being sprayed what does that prove?

And in a personnel matter, the other officers cannot be compelled to speak. They might, and they might not. The investigating agency MIGHT be able to get a copy of the police report ... or, they might not be able to. Personnel matters don't operate under all the same rules as a criminal case.

I've endeavored to present the fact that there is a documented 7 year history of antagonistic behavior bordering the illegal on the part of the neighbor/cop.

Okay. A 7 year history "documented" by whom? You? Are there police reports? Or only the couple of sustained complaints you have made?

Once again, the PAST cannot be entered as proof of the current.

My opinion is simply that he cannot control his anger.

It could well be. He may have slipped in through the cracks when the LA County area had a shortage of employees and they practically waived the background process and lowered the bar with regards to hiring. This resulted in a few high profile incidents a few years back (Rampart and Perez) and were not isolated to just the LAPD.

He did not respect a judge's COURT ORDER and he did not respect the DA this week. He can't control his anger and he has no fear of authority (he must be in a union).

Speak to the DA and see if he can suggest anything.

Let's make a bet, Carl, coffee and a doughnut. I say the Chief sustains. You say it's unfounded or anything other than sustained. The last investigation that resulted in 3 sustained complaints, took 6 months. It may be a while.

I don't bet, and I don't eat donuts (usually). I'm not saying it will be unfounded or not sustained, only that there are difficulties in establishing a nexus. I have no idea what policy violations were sustained on the neighbor in the past, or why. It could be that they were sustained with a punishment of "verbal counseling" or a memorandum in his file (purged at the next evaluation). If so, it's likely that he did not contest the punishment even if no nexus was firmly established. A more serious punishment is likely to result in a Skelly hearing and an appeal. Depending on the nature of the accusation and alleged policy violation, the agency may be able to establish jurisdiction and be on good footing for imposing discipline. If I were them, I'd be very wary, however, as litigation for wrongful termination or any sort of discipline that effects current or future employment or earnings can be very, very costly to the agency.

They may be able to do something ... or, they may not. As I said, if he's an idiot, his employers may be eager to see him done in and will try whatever they can. If he's not a problem for them, then they may not be able to do much.

- Carl

 

[Johnmelissa]

You Make The CAll

Ok. Let's conclude this by having you stand in as the Chief of Police with the current polices that are in force at your agency. I submit a complaint of RETALIATION for my sustained complaints, BATTERY (garden hose water), CONSPIRACY TO MALICIOUSLY AND FALSELY INDICT ANOTHER PERSON FOR A CRIME (spraying me then having his wife call and say I did it) and EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF POLICE CODE OF ETHICS.

I have my wife, daughter (age 21) and myself. He has himself and his minor son. We place his wife and daughter not outside but inside. He won't show his video. All 3 of us say we saw the neighbor/cop spray me with the hose as I did nothing. Then I got in my car and drove to the park. Later, I returned and the neighbor/cop sprayed me again. After 10 seconds of being drenched with water my eyelids have closed, my body partially crouches, I turn to the side, I spray in the direction of the source of the water coming at me as a natural reaction and an attempt to preserve my physical safety and I retreat up my driveway to my garage to a position where the neighbor/cop can no longer spray me. The neighbor and son were laughing and enjoying themselves. They saw my wife and said, "there's the Gargoyle. The Gargoyle is watching us." Which is a character they encounter frequently while playing their Nintendo Video Games. They substituted the garden hose for the joy stick and were recreating the game scenarios. Three people saw this. When the police arrived the father/neighbor/cop was not present. He was there as seen by three witnesses and not there when the police arrived. His motive was anger at me for washing the gutter back in his direction (I did not spray him I was washing the gutter). What he was doing that day was working outside putting his 40' RV away, putting a cover on it and washing his truck and trailer (he's got all the OHV's). His wife and young daughter were in the house and not seen outside. These return-from-trip clean-up days, Sundays last all afternoon into the evening. HE WAS THERE WORKING OUTSIDE. THE POLICE DID NOT SEE HIM DURING THE ENTIRE RESPONSE EVENT. He had the motive (complaint retaliation), the means (the hose his was cleaning up with) and the opportunity (working outside after returning from an RV trip when the neighbor washes the gutter down).

For this exercise, Carl is the Chief of Police. The neighbor/cop may have told the Chief one or two various scenarios, each ostensibly exculpatory. The Chief may present one of these hypotheticals as a rationale for UNFOUNDED or UNSUSTAINED findings. With the full knowledge that the Chief himself sustained 3 complaints against this same deputy fewer than five months ago (the same m.o. and husband/wife conspiracy relating to my daughter's friend and a traffic event they contrived - same thing last year - sustained) , whom do you believe? What action do you recommend?

May we have your decision, Chief?

Thanks.

 

[CdwJava]

Ok. Let's conclude this by having you stand in as the Chief of Police with the current polices that are in force at your agency. I submit a complaint of RETALIATION for my sustained complaints, BATTERY (garden hose water), CONSPIRACY TO MALICIOUSLY AND FALSELY INDICT ANOTHER PERSON FOR A CRIME (spraying me then having his wife call and say I did it) and EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF POLICE CODE OF ETHICS.

I would almost certainly have to defer the criminal allegations as these would involve a separate investigation by the agency of primary jurisdiction and the DA. Plus, you may claim battery, he would certainly deny it. The code of ethics is not agency policy and is irrelevant to the proceedings. The only thing I MIGHT be able to pin on him might be one of the catch-all "unprofessional conduct" policies. However, if he contacts the Legal Defense Fund, we'll be forced to show how off-duty conduct not involving his status as a peace officer with this agency was "unprofessional conduct" as an officer with this department.

You have your family supporting you, he has his family supporting him. Absent anything in the statements (posture, position, contradictions) that lead the investigator to believe one is lying and thus discredit the statement(s), the statements are a wash.

If I ask about the video and he explains it was not working or was not on, I really have no other recourse in that area. How do I prove or disprove that? The arrest report that includes your arrest will place you in a dimmer light and thereby further discredit your statements. However, as the police report is not generally ALL the facts, it may not weigh too heavily on the decision ... again, depending on the details.

The prior discipline MIGHT be able to be brought up if they included admonishments that were not heeded in the current dust-up. But, absent a violation of conditions made in the prior complaints, they are not evidence of the current one and can only be included to justify progressive (i.e. more serious) discipline.

Ultimately, I cannot render a decision on the matter because I do not have all the relevant information - statements, info of past conduct, and police reports. I also do not have my agency's P&P in front of me so I can't say with certainty that we have a policy that is relevant here. I suspect we have none that is directly relevant, hence the "unprofessional conduct" and related policies.

The key for my agency would be creating that nexus. I have officers that live outside of town and I would be hard pressed to justify discipline for an incident that occurred out of town and out of county. If this chief has done it before, bully for him. If not, good luck.

This is not something you can make a good hypothetical out of. There are legal mines all around, and the possibility of successful punishment is a coin toss. Yes, it's possible ... no, it won't be easy if the officer makes a fight of it.

The situation is very fact dependent. We are only hearing your side of the story. I assume he will refute everything you have to say and paint YOU to be the whack-job. Unless he has a reputation of being a nut-ball himself, this is what we call "he said, she said", or, in this case, "he said, he said." I can't possibly say how I might decide on a situation where I have not heard or seen all the allegations or evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Good luck with the complaint.

- Carl

 

[Eekamouse]

Sheesh!!! How do you know so much about what goes on inside their house???? How do you know about the father and son playing a video game with a gargoyle in it? What are you doing? Spying on them? How are you coming by information like this stuff? I sincerely doubt you are a welcome visitor in their home so how is it that you know so much about what they do inside their house? You sure have a detailed inventory of their possessions, too, I can't help but notice. Why does what he owns engender so much bitterness in you? You really ought not to covet your neighbor's stuff, buddy. It's pathetic, impolite, and a sin. LOL.
I take back what I said about letting this go. PLEASE continue to harrass your neighbor. I'm sure it's going to only better your life and help keep the peace on your street. Heck, he'll probably thank you for it later because if not for you, how would he ever have known the error of his ways? Yes, surely he will thank you...or maybe he'll finally just shoot your annoying butt. I know if you were my neighbor, I'd have shot you a long time ago.

You can't even present your diatribe here in a manner that puts you in a good light and the cop in a bad light so it must be glaringly apparent to the cops and judges having to deal with you that you are the nut job in this situation. If you aren't willing to get a lobotomy, you should at least sell your home and move back to your own planet. No one here deserves a neighbor like you, not even O.J. (well, maybe O.J.).