COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com

This article by Greg Moran in this morning's Union Tribune points out the total lack of discipline in a typical police force that is tolerated by management.
COUNTY TO PAY $180K OVER ARREST AT GUNPOINT | UTSanDiego.com:
The San Diego County taxpayers had to pay $180,000 to this lady in a settlement due to misconduct of County Sheriff Deputies, and those deputies are still on the job!  I hope they are on Bonnie Dumanis' "Brady List" of officers that can be trusted!
If any other resident of San Diego County called the Sheriff Department and complained that a boyfriend or girlfriend had run up unauthorized charges on their credit card, would they get a response with a swat team of between six and ten deputies with arms drawn?  I tend to doubt it!
In addition to the $180K to be paid to the plaintiff, Michelle Martin, these rogue deputy sheriffs also incurred significant other costs to the county.  Apparently we don't know if it was 6 or 10 deputies who traveled from San Marcos to Ocean Beach to perform the arrest.  Are we to understand that the officers involved weren't deposed, and that the Sheriff department really doesn't know where their deputies are at all times?  However if there were ten, they probably had to travel in at least three vehicles.  Three vehicles, ten people for a 90 mile round trip probably caused specialized vehicles to be driven a total of 270 miles (at cost of 75 cents/mile minimum) and the trip itself probably took at least 2 hours.  The time for the home invasion, arrest of Michelle and booking probably another 2 hours.  The hourly labor cost with all overhead probably is close to $150/hour to the County -- so 10 officers for  4 hours would be about $60,000 + $200 for vehicle mileage expense. In addition there was the cost of keeping Martin in jail for 5 days.  On top of all of this, there was the County's legal expense involved in considering Martin's case, dropping the charges, and then defending the County against her lawsuit and then settling. The legal costs to the County, state and federal government were immense from looking at the various legal documents and news articles over the years this case was pending. (see bottom for articles)  There were many  cases filed, huge amounts of lawyers time, judges time, and court administration involved.
The Sheriff deputies who were involved in this should clearly be disciplined, and any such discipline should be made public, so that the public understands that our Sheriff department will not stand for this sort of misuse of resources.  This is important so we know that our tax dollars are being spent properly and that our police forces are trustworthy.
The case seems to revolve around an $8000 charge that Michelle made for furniture after being thrown out of the house she shared with the Deputy--and apparent father of Michelle's two children.  Somehow the Deputy must be responsible for the support and care of the children.  I found no mention of any child support payments from the Deputy for care of the children.  $8000 for furniture doesn't sound unreasonable for starting a new home from scratch with two children.  Why is that relatively small amount of money such a big deal?  I'm not sure what the standards are now for police officers.  However "in my day" in the US Air Force, officers would have been disciplined for living with someone of the opposite sex and unmarried.  Having children out of wedlock would have also initiated discipline.  Abandoning those children would have caused the officer's pay to be attached to pay for support of the children.  From what I read in the news articles, apparently the Deputy was a "deadbeat dad" during this period.
It is also disturbing to me that the action took place in December 2008, Michelle filed the suit in 2009, and it is just now being settled -- around 5 years later!  And the case was settled because the County didn't want the publicity that would be involved with a jury trial.  How long would the County have been able to drag out the case if it actually went to trial?
Here is the results from the Court of Appeals: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/04/16/11-55927.pdf
It appears that the San Diego District Attorney agrees that the Deputy actions were inappropriate--see the bottom of this: http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/0813.pdf
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/16/56744.htm
It is pretty clear that Michell's neighbors supported her position: http://obrag.org/?p=73026
Appeals court concerning police conspiracy: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Apr/23/san-diego-sheriff-suit-revived/
Appeals court believes there was no conspiracy: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/came041713.htm
http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2013/04/michelle-cameron-v.-michelle-craig.html

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com

I thought this Union Tribune article by Jeff Brady was interesting.  Apparently all DAs now have a secret list of police officers whom they no longer trust -- called the Brady List.

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com:

I can certainly understand why the DA would need such a list, and agree that it probably should be kept "secret."

I hope that the regional defense attorneys also maintain a similar list of officers whom they believe may have lied under oath. The DA needs to trust the testimony of officers.

I also hope that the Chief of Police is aware of all of the names on the list.  Being on that list probably shouldn't be the "kiss of death" for promotions or other advancement.  However, it should be considered when the individuals come up for promotions --particularly to the higher ranks.

Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com

It always seemed clear to me and to most legal professionals that police searching a person's cell phone without a warrant was an illegal act.  The June 25, 2014 unanimous US Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California confirms that understanding.

Even though most judges, courts, prosecutors and police understood that, they did those illegal searches for years because there was no "firm ruling" against this type of search, and because there was no penalty to police if they violated citizen's rights.  They had no orders to "not search" people's phones, so in the interest of "fighting crime" they went ahead and did it.  This is their "good faith exception."

Now it appears that Riley v. California is complicating prosecutions in progress and previous convictions based upon this "illegally obtained evidence"  See this article by Kristina Davis in the San Diego Union Tribune: Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com:  The article cites a few cases of pretty horrible crimes that were uncovered and prosecuted based upon illegal searches of a suspect's cell phone.  I would assume that there are similar situations now all over the US.   Yes, in these cases the cell phone searches were keys to prosecution, and I'm sure there were other cases.  However how many thousands (or millions across the US) of illegal searches were done by police in cases of stops or arrests for minor offenses (broken tail light) were there when nothing illegal was found?  How many times has TSA illegally searched (without a warrant) American's cell phones or laptops when they are returning to the US after a trip abroad? From the news, it appears that the practice was very common, and that the police even would extort passwords from suspects so they could get into phones and online accounts.

It would be appropriate to fine or discipline those who conducted, or directed the illegal cell phone searches prior to the Riley vs California ruling, since it seemed so obvious to everyone (including the Supreme Court) that what they were doing was illegal.  However, (per the "good faith exception") they will argue that they were "just doing their job the best  way they knew how."  However any illegal search AFTER Riley  vs California should be an immediate cause for legal prosecution.  Any officer doing so should be immediately suspended and prosecuted!  I can still see police pulling me over for a broken tail light asking for my phone and passwords.  They can say:  "Either give me your phone and passwords, or you can sit here on the side of the road and wait a couple of hours until another officer brings a search warrant." -- Or they will say "Do you have something to hide on your phone?  If not, give it to me, and you will be quickly on your way!"  It is a very awkward situation.  This ruling doesn't seem to stop that from happening.

On the other hand, I totally disagree with the concept overturning convictions based upon "illegally obtained" evidence.  These suspects were clearly sleazebag criminals and deserve to be convicted and punished.  When the  1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision was made, and police were then suddenly forced to read everyone their rights and, many convictions were overturned where the suspect wasn't properly "Mirandized." .   It was clear that the suspect was guilty, but the conviction was reversed as a way to "punish" the police and prosecutors" for violating the citizen's rights. When police, prosecutors, or judges clearly violate citizens rights, there needs to be some other form of sanctions, discipline, or punishment for doing so. --Not letting convicted criminals go free!

This Riley vs California situation is very similar to Miranda in that sense.  The arrests, prosecutions and convictions cited in this article for child sex, child pornography etc are heinous crimes and the evidence, while obtained illegally, is still valid evidence of  the crime. In these cases, it would be reasonable to think that the police would have had grounds to obtain a legal search warrant, and would have searched the phone(s) anyway, if it weren't for the "good faith exception" they were operating on.