Police Arrest Over a False Charge

**cdwjava** · 01-10-2009, 01:16 AM

Quoting imnotdavidxnsx

yeah, it really confuses me as well that the complaint wasn't looked into. I think we can both agree that the police could have easily accepted my complaint, and just made sure the results were that the complaints were unfounded, if they wanted me off their backs, LEGALLY.

Sure. I would have done that just to get it over with. Accepting the complaint and making even a cursory exam would allow me to dispose of it, send it to the Chief, and he could send you a short note giving you the disposition (not the punishment - if any, or even any details about the investigation or lack thereof).

It really does seem that they are so ignorant, or are so assumptive of MY ignorance (which I guess DOES make them ignorant) that they thought it would be fine to save themselves the trouble of an investigation and ignore me entirely.

That's why I am very surprised. This was a huge issue a few years back and was why there was a great deal of retraining going on with regards to the acceptance of personnel complaints. The state's Chiefs and Sheriffs went through a lot of this and it surprises me that anyone might be playing games with the issue.

While there is no criminal penalty that I know for not accepting the complaint, it has resulted in sustained civil awards against agencies. It seems to me that if you want to sweep something under the rug at least pretend to look in to it THEN dismiss it.

The ACLU...now why didn't I think of that? I spent all morning leaving messages for less than impressive law firms that claim to be involved in police misconduct cases. I'll contact the ACLU on monday. Thanks for that.

They were at the forefront of some cases in this area some years back. I strongly suspect they will give you much the same thing as I have - the agency should have accepted your complaint about the possible false arrest, but the false report issue is probably out of reach for a personnel complaint.

Again, if it were me, I would have looked into it just to dispose of that as a possibility. And, since we police really HATE to be taken for suckers, I would strongly suspect that my officers already looked at that and concluded that either there was no good case, or, they believed that the rape suspect (you) did, indeed, commit the offense.

If the failure to file even one of my complaints amounts to a misdemeanor, the DA's office has already made it clear that they are ready to pounce on that allegation and investigate the matter, so I'm all set there, because I have recorded proof now that the complaints are being denied.

I have been unable to find that it is a CRIME not to accept a personnel complaint. I do not believe that there is any criminal code that makes this a requirement, though it can be a cause for civil action.

If it's a civil matter, it would certainly seem that the ACLU will be a great bet to get the ball rolling for me. I don't mind representing myself in a civil suit against the girl who accused me, but I'd feel like a fool, showing up in court against the riverside police department, without a lawyer =/.

I wouldn't even consider taking on the RPD without an attorney. The ACLU or an attorney may be able to light a fire under them to accept the complaint, but we still get back to the end result. This end result is very likely to be that there was no wrongdoing with regards to the arrest or the apparent lack of investigation on the false report allegation (especially since the latter is entirely discretionary).

If, when you consult any attorneys, they ask for money up front as opposed to taking the matter on contingency, then you have a clear sign that your allegations lack any real potential for the attorney to recoup their investment of time and money. The ACLU is in the same boat - if they cannot recoup, they may not accept the matter. However, I have known the ACLU to send nasty letters in instances like this in order to remove a stumbling block. And, a call from an attorney to the Chief might not hurt.

As a side note, I know a number of officers, supervisors and above with the RPD as I used to work with them at another agency (they left my agency in SD County between 2000 and 2003 for reasons too lengthy to explain here). This is one reason why I am surprised at this attitude. The officers I knew would not just outright dismiss something if it were so obvious. Although, I only know less than a dozen members of that agency, so the odds are slim that anyone I know has thus far been involved.

- Carl

**imnotdavidxnsx** · 01-10-2009, 01:41 AM

"While there is no criminal penalty that I know for not accepting the complaint..."
------

Maybe this huge issue you spoke of from a few years back generated one. If you look up the obstruction claim i mentioned, there is definitely a section regarding failure to file a required report, and it states that this failure is a misdemeanor (at the very least). It would definitely seem that my complaints are reports that are required to be filed. If it's determined that I have presented probable cause to investigate this girl, then I suppose that would raise the issue of a second report that was never filed. I don't know...I guess we'll see what the DA says if I am forced to call back the office with this allegation.

------

"I have been unable to find that it is a CRIME not to accept a personnel complaint. I do not believe that there is any criminal code that makes this a requirement, though it can be a cause for civil action."

------

I'll take what I can get, at this point. I am doing this for closure, and for the principle of the matter. As long as the persons involved in this situation end up suffering through justice in some form, i'll be satisfied. I am simply exploring all avenues at once and seeing which pan out, because exploring one at a time would take years longer, I imagine.

------

"However, I have known the ACLU to send nasty letters in instances like this in order to remove a stumbling block. And, a call from an attorney to the Chief might not hurt."

------

That would be terrific. I have already turned up a family member who now wishes to get involved. He spent over 30 years working through is own insurance claims adjusting business as an independent investigator. His letters may give me some leverage as well. It's definitely nothing like hearing from an attorney, but it's definitely a sign for the police that outside entities are starting to take notice and get involved.

------

"As a side note, I know a number of officers, supervisors and above with the RPD as I used to work with them at another agency (they left my agency in SD County between 2000 and 2003 for reasons too lengthy to explain here). This is one reason why I am surprised at this attitude. The officers I knew would not just outright dismiss something if it were so obvious. Although, I only know less than a dozen members of that agency, so the odds are slim that anyone I know has thus far been involved."

------

This reminds me of a point I made to someone on the phone, earlier today. Someone with the city told me I should go back to Internal Affairs and file a complaint about the OTHER IA officer who insulted me and refused to take my claim.

She was a nice enough girl, but I was basically in shock at the ignorance of this suggestion. There are about five people who work in the IA office, and I'm sure they've all been employed with each other for years. They're probably about as close to family as you can get in a work setting. Going in and trying to file with IA about an IA officer would be like me walking into your house and saying "hey, I'd like to file a claim with you about your brother. You wanna handle this for me?"

In fact, I imagine that is mostly what is causing this whole fiasco. Every time I mention an officer to another one, they all know who I'm talking about. They all seem to be too tight knit to be willing to start an investigation that may get their "friend" in trouble. I could be wrong, but it would certainly explain a lot.

**cdwjava** · 01-10-2009, 02:21 AM

Quoting imnotdavidxnsx

"While there is no criminal penalty that I know for not accepting the complaint..."
------

Maybe this huge issue you spoke of from a few years back generated one. If you look up the obstruction claim i mentioned, there is definitely a section regarding failure to file a required report, and it states that this failure is a misdemeanor (at the very least). It would definitely seem that my complaints are reports that are required to be filed. If it's determined that I have presented probable cause to investigate this girl, then I suppose that would raise the issue of a second report that was never filed. I don't know...I guess we'll see what the DA says if I am forced to call back the office with this allegation.

I have looked up every section referenced in my manuals at the office and on line, and there seems to be no CRIMINAL offense. If there is, it's buried in some Government Code somewhere and not in my Internal Affairs or Management manuals.

On the false report issue, even if you could PROVE there was "probable cause" to believe she committed a crime, the police department is not legally required to look into the matter. Hence my reasoning that the false report issue is a non starter unless some higher up looks at it and finds that there is an obvious case to make. But, like I said, cops have egos and they are not going to let a false report pass if they can make the case at all. But, they are very difficult to prove and rarely prosecuted even when circumstances scream for it ... heck, I have a written confession and can't me DA to pursue my previously mentioned DV issue.

That would be terrific. I have already turned up a family member who now wishes to get involved. He spent over 30 years working through is own insurance claims adjusting business as an independent investigator. His letters may give me some leverage as well. It's definitely nothing like hearing from an attorney, but it's definitely a sign for the police that outside entities are starting to take notice and get involved.

The squeaky wheel does tend to get attention. But, it is no guarantee of a resolution you might like. If they don't want to proceed with a criminal investigation, no power on Earth can force them to. Just as they cannot be forced to fully investigate any personnel complaint you might make. They can do as much or as little as they wish. What they do and how they do it will depend on policy and procedure, not upon any legal requirement.

This reminds me of a point I made to someone on the phone, earlier today. Someone with the city told me I should go back to Internal Affairs and file a complaint about the OTHER IA officer who insulted me and refused to take my claim.

I suppose you could. However, it's odd that they have an IA officer accepting the complaint. The way it has worked where I been employed is that another officer receives the complaint, logs it, passes it off to a supervisor who must make a recommendation to a manager (or, in my case, the Chief) as to how to proceed. After that it is assigned to an investigator for follow-up.

Going in and trying to file with IA about an IA officer would be like me walking into your house and saying "hey, I'd like to file a claim with you about your brother. You wanna handle this for me?"

This would be the kind of thing that should be handled by administration.

You mentioned that you are waiting for a call back from the Chief? have you tried to schedule and in person interview with him?

In fact, I imagine that is mostly what is causing this whole fiasco. Every time I mention an officer to another one, they all know who I'm talking about. They all seem to be too tight knit to be willing to start an investigation that may get their "friend" in trouble. I could be wrong, but it would certainly explain a lot.

I work for a small department these days ... I know all the officers, and my kids play with the kids of officers I have investigated. It can be a very difficult job. I'm working one right now that could cause an officer to lose his job ... I've known the officer since he was in high school six years ago, and I have known his wife a year longer than that. Making the recommendation I might have to make will be a very difficult thing. It's one reason why IA officers are generally outcasts of their departments. In the larger agencies I worked with, you rarely associated with IA investigators ... it was a lonely position, though considered a fast-track to promotion.

- Carl

**imnotdavidxnsx** · 01-10-2009, 02:38 AM

This is all very interesting. Thank you for the further advice and for taking additional time to look into your manuals and other documents.

The main thing I am taking out of the response you've just given me...is that I should probably make an attempt at an in-person interview with the chief, as soon as I can reach his office on Monday.

It's funny that you mentioned the squeaky wheel saying when you quoted my comment about a family member getting involved. That same family member referred to the same saying when I spoke with him, earlier today. I guess it's not that much of a coincidence....since you are both correct. He also says the key to success is determination (kind of the same deal). I guarantee I have more than these officers do. I would likely go to federal levels about this, if things led me down that road before I saw justice.

I think that is the main thing these officers are failing to see about me. If they understood now how far I WILL go with this, they would probably handle matters differently. That IA officer's recorded conversation with me lasted an hour and forty minutes. I know this...because he told me at the end of the conversation "you've wasted an hour and forty minutes of my time", right before he told me I wasn't smart enough to win the argument and that I was making him angry.

Let's just be honest here...what happened was...he sat down with me with no intention of changing his mind, under the guise that I was there to see off the investigation i'd been asking for. His ego (you're right, some of these officers have unbelievable ones) made him think that an hour of speaking with him was going to make me change my mind about something I've been fighting for since July of 2008. When he realized he had failed, he became angry and accused me of wasting his time. The whole thing degraded after that, and I felt so uncomfortable, I ceased to even make eye contact with him until moments before I left the building. When I did glance at him, he had the biggest grin on his face, seemingly quite please with himself for having affected me in such a way.

Anyway, I am taking in everything you've said, and I'm off again to see how things play out for a while. As usual, I will be back to post any important developments.

**cdwjava** · 01-10-2009, 02:51 AM

Quoting imnotdavidxnsx

This is all very interesting. Thank you for the further advice and for taking additional time to look into your manuals and other documents.

Sure. It was a slow night ... I'm home now. I may have missed something, but I searched them by keyword and index, and did not find any criminal section associated for refusing to take a complaint ... I couldn't even find a section requiring us to take a complaint, but I presume THAT one must exist because it has been drilled into me for years. If so, it may be in the Civil Code, or the Government Code - both of which have many things that must be done but that lack criminal penalties.

The main thing I am taking out of the response you've just given me...is that I should probably make an attempt at an in-person interview with the chief, as soon as I can reach his office on Monday.

I would. *IF* anyone can get someone to at least make a cursory exam of your complaints, it is the Chief. If he won't, then either he's a fool (and last time I checked, Chief Leach was no fool ...) or there is something in your presentation that screams "no issue".

I guarantee I have more than these officers do. I would likely go to federal levels about this, if things led me down that road before I saw justice.

I don't see a federal issue here unless you go to civil court and get a court to rule that there was no probable cause to support the arrest, and that the officer's actions were unreasonable and they should have known there was no probable cause. I doubt that can be shown given what you have mentioned thus far.

I think that is the main thing these officers are failing to see about me. If they understood now how far I WILL go with this, they would probably handle matters differently. That IA officer's recorded conversation with me lasted an hour and forty minutes. I know this...because he told me at the end of the conversation "you've wasted an hour and forty minutes of my time", right before he told me I wasn't smart enough to win the argument and that I was making him angry.

That's why I would go with, "Okay. We'll look into this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention."

After that, if I was nefarious, I could just sit on it or have someone glance at it, and then send you the end result thanking you for your interest and you would have no legal right (absent a lawsuit and a court order) to see any portion of the investigation.

Anyway, I am taking in everything you've said, and I'm off again to see how things play out for a while. As usual, I will be back to post any important developments.

Please do.

And, look, I am not AGAINST what you are doing, I just want you to be clear as to what the legal obligations are. Far too many people have a misperception about what the police are required to do. Few people realize that investigating crimes is not mandated in the law. Very, very few incidents mandate a law enforcement response ... very few. And if I were in your boat, I'd be angry, too. But, you have to understand also that there can be a vast gulf between what you might KNOW and what the state might be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And, for a host of reasons, it is very difficult to pursue false report allegations absent some very damning evidence - like a confession. And even with a confession, very often they will not be prosecuted for a number of reasons. It is very frustrating to law enforcement, too.

Good luck.

- Carl

**imnotdavidxnsx** · 01-15-2009, 06:54 PM

I sent an e-mail to the sergeant who most recently denied letting me file a complaint. I named "obstruction of public administration of government" as a possible criminal charge, and let him know I was awaiting for a return call from the chief of police and was getting ready to call the DA.

Two days later, I had a letter in the mail, saying that he and his supervisor had done a "thorough" investigation of the matter and determined the complaint was unfounded, assigning a single report number to everything I had submitted.

Only problem is...there were multiple complaints within the documents I submitted to Internal Affairs, two of which name the officers who did the investigating. Not only can these officers obviously not investigate complaints against themselves, but a court order from 2001 states every individual complaint that can be discerned from one must be separately investigated and assigned its own report number. I counted out six separate complaints in the documents I provided IA.

I am sending them a follow up letter, but I just went ahead and called the DA's office today. The investigations officer I spoke with said it sounds like a very interesting case, and I can expect to start receiving a lot of phone calls once they receive my official complaint about the matter, which I am putting together right now.

**cdwjava** · 01-15-2009, 07:19 PM

Quoting imnotdavidxnsx

Two days later, I had a letter in the mail, saying that he and his supervisor had done a "thorough" investigation of the matter and determined the complaint was unfounded, assigning a single report number to everything I had submitted.

Sounds like you have your response.

Only problem is...there were multiple complaints within the documents I submitted to Internal Affairs, two of which name the officers who did the investigating.

While it makes things sticky, if the supervisor was part of the investigation it is not uncommon to merge investigations. Plus, as I previously mentioned, they do not have to do a thorough investigation of each complaint. They ay have disposed of the complaint against the IA officer in an administrative manner. It is also possible that a single investigation involving multiple subjects was conducted. While I do not do that, it has been done ... from a numbers perspective, having fewer IA reports looks better. It's like creating one crime report with multiple victims to diminish the impact of some crimes - each report generally gets reported as a single crime to UCR even with multiple victims ... but, that's another topic.

Not only can these officers obviously not investigate complaints against themselves, but a court order from 2001 states every individual complaint that can be discerned from one must be separately investigated and assigned its own report number.

Must be a local thing. Plus, there may be others going. Perhaps you will get additional letters.

I counted out six separate complaints in the documents I provided IA.

It would be entirely impractical to assign a different number to EACH allegation. A separate number to each "complaint" (i.e. report)m sure ... but as to each allegation? Uh, no. One simple complaint generally involves at least two or three potential policy violations. I think the fewest I have found in ANY investigation is two potential violations, and most involve three.

I am sending them a follow up letter, but I just went ahead and called the DA's office today. The investigations officer I spoke with said it sounds like a very interesting case, and I can expect to start receiving a lot of phone calls once they receive my official complaint about the matter, which I am putting together right now.

I suspect that if they do anything, they will just light a fire under the police department to investigate and send their letters out to you.

In spite of what you might feel from the DA's office, I would be flabbergasted if they identified and pursued a criminal charge against anyone. And I am unfamiliar with this "obstruction of public administration of government" "charge" you mentioned ... you wouldn't happen to have a code section, would you?

Under the law, you do not have a right to review the personnel investigation at all. So, you may never know how much or how little they investigated anything. Your next step would be to consult an attorney and file suit should you wish to do so.

- Carl

**imnotdavidxnsx** · 01-15-2009, 10:10 PM

"Must be a local thing."

------

yes, it's a local thing.

I will type out the part of the judgment I am referring to. Both a judge and the Attorney General decided on these orders:

"50. Riverside shall, within six months of entry of judgment, modify RPD's current complaint procedure, which is set forth in section 4.12 of the RPD Policy and Procedures Manual, to:"

(and now I will skip to the parts I highlighted for the DA's office)

"d. require that each issue raised in the complaint be addressed and be separately set forth..."

"e. all citizen complaints that are received shall be issued a number by the Communications Bureau. Internal Affairs shall ensure that a number has been issued on all citizen complaints. Internal Affairs shall log all citizen complaints (by the assigned number and citizen's name) and track them..."

I can see how they might excuse assigning one number to the complaint, but section "d" definitely says that all the issues mentioned within that complaint can't be lumped together as one.

------

"Plus, there may be others going. Perhaps you will get additional letters."

------

Yes, maybe I am waiting on more letters, but I think that's highly unlikely. Do you really believe that? I will definitely post again if I receive any others, but the letter I received seems to be an all inclusive decision, and does not suggest any other investigations are occurring.

------

"It would be entirely impractical to assign a different number to EACH allegation. A separate number to each "complaint" (i.e. report)m sure ... but as to each allegation? Uh, no. One simple complaint generally involves at least two or three potential policy violations. I think the fewest I have found in ANY investigation is two potential violations, and most involve three."

------

I don't see how it's any more impractical than having completely separate investigations for each allegation.

I guess it's really beside the point, the point being that they are required to accept my complaints and investigate them, and they refused. Regardless of the fact they have supposedly completed an investigation NOW, they willingly broke the law for two months beforehand.

------

"While it makes things sticky, if the supervisor was part of the investigation it is not uncommon to merge investigations. "

------

What? So I can accuse an IA officer of police misconduct, and that same officer can head the investigation of the complaint? No way. I refuse to believe that's legal. It's a conflict of interest, of course. That would be like a judge getting charged with a crime and being assigned to preside over the trial.

Also, since the misconduct alleged IS partially criminal, I don't think IA was even authorized to handle that aspect of the claim. That is supposed to be handled by the a unit at the DA's office.

The IA procedures pamphlet I have says "In the event the complaint alleges criminal activity, the Criminal Investigations Bureau will investigate the matter". This bureau is, I believe, the special investigations department within the DA's office. Either way, it's not Internal Affairs

------

"And I am unfamiliar with this "obstruction of public administration of government" "charge" you mentioned ... you wouldn't happen to have a code section, would you?"

------

I don't know about an actual code section, but this is where I found the term:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obs...of-government/

Also, do I have the right to ask for a copy of the tape recorded session I had with the IA sergeant? I am on the tape, so I would imagine it's within my rights, but I suppose I could be mistaken.

**cdwjava** · 01-15-2009, 10:56 PM

Quoting imnotdavidxnsx

"50. Riverside shall, within six months of entry of judgment, modify RPD's current complaint procedure, which is set forth in section 4.12 of the RPD Policy and Procedures Manual, to:"

(and now I will skip to the parts I highlighted for the DA's office)

"d. require that each issue raised in the complaint be addressed and be separately set forth..."

"e. all citizen complaints that are received shall be issued a number by the Communications Bureau. Internal Affairs shall ensure that a number has been issued on all citizen complaints. Internal Affairs shall log all citizen complaints (by the assigned number and citizen's name) and track them..."

Okay, a "complaint" can be an amalgamation of allegations. For instance, if you complain that officer Smith cursed at you, kicked you when you were down, and flipped off your wife, that is one "complaint" with three allegations. Thus, it would require only one number. Now, if you came in on three separate occasions to make three separate complaints, I suppose they might have to assign three different numbers unless they resulted from the same incident.

The issues (allegations) must be set apart, but that does not mean they each get their own case number. Each allegation would be articulated and addressed - that's standard practice.

Yes, maybe I am waiting on more letters, but I think that's highly unlikely. Do you really believe that?

If they wanted to shut you up, they'd do that. Until they do, they still have to deal with you. Once they resolve the issue internally then the only way you can compel anything is to get a judge to order it as part of a civil suit.

What? So I can accuse an IA officer of police misconduct, and that same officer can head the investigation of the complaint? No way. I refuse to believe that's legal. It's a conflict of interest, of course.

There is no law that explicitly prohibits the supervisor from merging the investigations should he choose to do so. It would be sloppy, and might be a violation of policy, but, I don't know that any other law might have been broken.

Also, since the misconduct alleged IS partially criminal, I don't think IA was even authorized to handle that aspect of the claim. That is supposed to be handled by the a unit at the DA's office.

Yes, they can conduct a parallel IA even if a criminal allegation is alleged. If the DA chooses to investigate for a false arrest, that is up to the DA's office or whatever interagency commission might be assigned to do these investigations. But, the IA office can also investigate should they choose to. While it is never a good idea to conduct parallel investigations (because it can taint the criminal side of the investigation because of the compelled statements and the like), it can be done.

I don't know about an actual code section, but this is where I found the term:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obs...of-government/

I don't see a crime in CA for them not accepting your personnel complaint. As I said previously, I suspect it's a paper requirement that lacks an CRIMINAL recourse, buit has, instead, a civil one.

Also, do I have the right to ask for a copy of the tape recorded session I had with the IA sergeant? I am on the tape, so I would imagine it's within my rights, but I suppose I could be mistaken.

You can ASK for anything you want ... whether they choose to give it to you or not is up to them. If they say, "No", your recourse would again be that civil suit.

Since the tape is part of a personnel investigation, an argument can be made that they can NOT provide you with that tape at all pursuant to the Government Code.

- Carl