Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another example of that "new professionalism" for you, Justice Scalia. And yet another example of a cop caught arresting someone falsely and lying on his police report only to be caught because a surveillance camera recorded what actually happened. Here are the facts.
A young woman named Agnes Lawless gets rear ended by another driver, Alberto Lopez Jr., at a stop light. Lopez leaves the scene of the accident. There was no serious damage, so Lawless and her friends continue on their way and stop at a convenience store. Lopez Jr., on the other hand, drives to a police station and informs his father, Alberto Lopez Sr., of what happened. And Lopez the Elder then takes his son in a squad car, goes to the convenience store, slaps Lawless around a bit and puts a gun to her head. Then for good measure, he arrests her for assaulting him.
Lawless and her friends filed complaints with the police department, but since it was a he said/they said and police officers are always believed over the public, those complaints weren't taken seriously. Lopez made it sound rather lurid on his testimony about the incident:
At a preliminary hearing four days later, Officer Lopez testified that he'd come into the store and ordered Lawless and the three young men with her to the floor, and that "she freaked out, started punching, slapping and kicking me multiple times."
And he didn't bother to mention that this all involved his son:
In his arrest report, Officer Lopez mentioned the auto accident that had initiated the events, but never mentioned that his son had been involved, referring to him in the report only as "the witness."
And best of all, Lopez and his fellow officers then tried to make sure there was no videotape that might show that they were lying:
The clerk on duty the night that Lopez confronted Lawless told investigators that three times after the incident, police officers spoke with him about the security tape and that two asked if he would erase it...Ruiz told investigators that Lopez mentioned erasing the tape again after other officers arrived. He said that police visited him at the store twice the next day and asked him whether he would erase the tape. He also said that they had advised him to "help the cop out and testify for the cop."
But then the store turned over their surveillance video and the cop's story crumbled. The video shows Lopez walking in to the store, grabbing Lawless by the back of the neck and putting his gun to her head. Not knowing it was a cop, she pulled away and swung her arms at him. And she was then arrested for assault. The charges against her were dropped. An internal affairs investigation absolved the cops over questioning the clerk about the video.
Lopez Sr. was returned to duty 8 days later and the DA declined to press any charges against him. Here's the surveillance video:
Politics
Comments
Jeebus. The policeman should get a few years in prison and never be allowed to touch a gun in his life. Instead, he won't even be prosecuted.
Posted by: bullfighter | July 24, 2009 10:32 AM
Hey, what do you expect? It's not like she was 60 years old, requiring a cane, and in her own home or anything.
Posted by: NJ | July 24, 2009 10:32 AM
Oh, come on, Lawless was clearly in the wrong here. Everyone knows that if a strange person comes up behind you, grabs you and points a gun in your face, you should just sit there and take it just in case they are a cop. Duh...
I mean, her name is "Lawless" for chissakes. How much more proof do you need?
Posted by: James Sweet | July 24, 2009 10:39 AM
I liked this post on the Snopes discussion thread about this incident:
Wow. I mean wow. Seriously if this cop doesn't see some serious jail time and the city of Philadelphia doesn't cough up some major cash to this woman, I'm going to lose all respect for Philadelphia. This was blatant assault.
1. His son rear ended the woman, which pretty much makes the accident his fault, so while probably not technically a crime, is a degree of legal responsibility.
2. His son then flees the scene of an accident, which is a crime.
3. Daddy follows the woman into the store, and assaults her, which is a crime.
4. Daddy points a loaded firearm at the woman, which would probably qualify as assault with a deadly weapon and/or reckless endangerment.
5. Daddy arrests the woman for assaulting him, so wrongful arrest.
6. He tells the clerk Mr. Ruiz to "do himself a favor and get rid of the camera tapes." which sounds an awful lot like a threat to me.
7. Mr. Ruiz overhears the cop tell his son in Spanish to say one of the suspects had a gun, when none were armed.
8. At least 3 times after the event other police ask the clerk who witnessed the event to erase the tape. (Tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, harassing a witness)
9. The cop lies under oath in the hearing, claiming the woman "freaked out, started punching, slapping and kicking me multiple times" which didn't happen. Perjury.
10. He fails to show up 3 times for hearings. Contempt of court.
And that's just laws. I can only imagine the number of rules of conduct for police officers he broke. And they still didn't prosecute? What were they waiting for, for him to beat the Pope to death with a bag of kittens, and the bag is made out of an American flag. And on fire.
Posted by: KeithB | July 24, 2009 10:40 AM
They won't cough up any cash for her, because instead of beginning a civil suit she moved to Florida. Can't say as I blame her for that, but I really wish she'd have sued instead. If the only time cops are acknowledged as having lied is when the evidence is blatantly there on tape, then we should at least hold them responsible for that.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 24, 2009 10:46 AM
No violation of department procedure and no crime? I count: (a) assault with a deadly weapon; (b) simple battery; (c) attempted obstruction of justice; (d) conspiracy to obstruct justice; In any case, even if the District Attorney will not indict, she's got a tort suit for the assaults as well as false arrest.
However, I don't see why this is an example of an if-not-for-video case. The convenience store clerk observed the whole thing and is a third party witness. That's not to say that the video isn't helpful.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 24, 2009 10:47 AM
I forgot the perjury that KeithB mentioned. But the failures to turn up in court probably do not constitute contempt of court. Generally you only get contempt of court in such cases if the judge specifically orders someone to appear at a specific time on pain of contempt.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 24, 2009 10:54 AM
@Bill: Because if it were a cop's word against hers clearly she resisted arrest. It doesn't matter how many witnesses back her.
I counted at least nine felonies the police admitted to and weren't charged with. I'm sure someone will be along any minute now to tell us how she was in the wrong.
Posted by: JThompson | July 24, 2009 11:02 AM
Gretchen, you're probably right that she moved to Florida in lieu of suing, but having moved there doesn't preclude a lawsuit. In fact by now being a citizen of another state she might have a diversity case and could get it into a federal court.
Or, having been a citizen of PA when the incident happened, would she still have to pursue it in a state court? kehrsam? Any other lawyers? A little help here?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 24, 2009 11:07 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but what's a diversity case?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 24, 2009 11:11 AM
He said that police visited him at the store twice the next day and asked him whether he would erase the tape. He also said that they had advised him to "help the cop out and testify for the cop."
and
An Internal Affairs investigation found no misconduct among officers who spoke with the clerk about the tape.
WTF?
Posted by: Taz | July 24, 2009 11:14 AM
"Forgive my ignorance, but what's a diversity case?"
Ooh! ooh! Ooh, Let me! This is when you have parties in a suit that reside in different states. Since neither state has clear jurisdiction, it is put into Federal Court.
I know this because I was recently on a Federal Jury. The case involved a disputed Change of Beneficiary form on a $ 2,000,000 insurance policy. All the parties in the case were from California, so the jury was confused as to why it was a Federal case.
After the trial, the Judge came back to the jury room and chatted with us - she even showed us around her chambers in the LA Courthouse! - and we found out that because the midwest based insurance company was originally part of the suit it was a diversity suit and tried in Federal Court. Eventually, the insurance company gave the money to the court and dropped out of the suit. But since the case was already going, it stayed in Federal Court.
Posted by: KeithB | July 24, 2009 11:20 AM
Long time lurker, first time caller.
The Philadelphia police department has had a bad year. Check out the string of news stories on the drug convictions that are being over turned because of the dirty PI and a dirty cop in narcotics. Something like 110 cases being re-opened. Check out the stories about narcotics cops shaking down small bodega owners for selling "baggies and blunts".
Check out the stories about domelights.com.
Posted by: Josh A | July 24, 2009 11:23 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 24, 2009 11:32 AM
Justice in the United States is a myth. If you or I did what "Officer" Lopez did, we'd be charged with terrorism and spend the next 10 - 25 years in prison.
Posted by: Owen | July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
@KeithB: You left out kidnapping and false imprisonment.
To all:
It helps to know that the glue that holds a police department together is mutual blackmail. They all have dirt on each other, they have dirt on the DAs, they have dirt on the judges. And in the rare case they don't have any dirt on a DA or judge, they can manufacture some, which will be a sobering experience for the victim, learning that cops can threaten you with prison solely on the basis of fabricated evidence.
This is why cops always give cops the benefit of the doubt, as they like to call it, and why DAs and judges lack the courage to defy them.
This is why the only agency that can investigate cops is one that is not threatened by them. When the FBI goes after them, that's when they get scared.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | July 24, 2009 12:32 PM
Philadelphia police are notorious. I have personally witnessed beatings and I know one person who was robbed by police officers right outside my apartment building.
She's probably much safer in Florida, because she would not be safe any more in Philadelphia regardless of whether she pursued a suit.
Posted by: rpsms | July 24, 2009 12:36 PM
It's Philadelphia for FSM's sake. For anyone who, like myself, lived in a black neighborhood in Philly when that vile shitbag Rizzo was mayor, that fact alone is explanation enough.
Some years ago when I still lived there, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an investigative series on crimes committed by cops and how they were covered up. Among the findings were that in Philly, if you were a cop you could:
Drive drunk- on duty- in a friggin' police car- get caught and....
Nothing would happen.
You could vandalize your boyfriend's car, causing hundreds of dollars worth of damage, while on duty and in uniform, be seen doing it by a dozen witnesses and...
Nothing would happen.
There were quite a few other well-documented examples of behavior that would have landed anyone else in the hoosegow, but became invisible when the perpetrator was a cop.
The only time our system takes police crime seriously is if they get caught stealing money.
Posted by: Ktesibios | July 24, 2009 12:42 PM
The DA has to be reelected. A big part of the reelection bid is the endorsement by the local cops union. DAs that prosecute cops don't get endorsed.
Posted by: Mu | July 24, 2009 1:05 PM
Mental note: If I'm ever arrested for a crime in Philadelphia and Officer Lopez is involved, I need to get my hands on this video. This is a "get out of jail free" card for anybody this guy arrests who has the good sense to make the "dirty cop" argument in court, whether they're guilty or not. Great job guys.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 24, 2009 1:20 PM
Let's say you're in the clerk's position, and the Police are asking for the tape in a very shady manner.
Who do you go to? A lawyer, assuming you know/trust one?
Posted by: Michael | July 24, 2009 1:22 PM
How many third party witnesses does it take to equal the word of the arresting officer, though? More importantly, how much easier is it for that third party witness to shake off intimidation and be honest if he has video tape on his side? I'm guessing that a *lot* of witnesses turn to the cop's side if they're given a choice between being left alone and rolling the dice with some fabricated charge against them in retaliation.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 24, 2009 1:40 PM
Serious question: if the Philadelphia PD is so corrupt, what can be done about it? It sounds like doing nothing has resulted in the current situation, and continuing to do nothing will make it worse. Could even the FBI sort out such a deeply embedded problem?
Posted by: XD | July 24, 2009 1:43 PM
From the linked article:
The jerk isn't off yet, folks. I agree he should've faced assault charges, but honestly a conviction would've been unlikely anyway. I do predict he'll lose his badge over this (if only due to the publicity), but call me an optimist. I hope those of you from Philly will let us know when the other shoe finally drops.
Posted by: WScott | July 24, 2009 1:49 PM
@9 - It would likely be a case based on violation of civil rights under color of law, 42 USC 1983 and 1985. Federal cause of action, federal court. No diversity needed.
@10 - "Diversity action" You can bring a non-federal claim in federal court rather than state court if the parties are from different states (among a few other conditions).
Posted by: grog | July 24, 2009 2:21 PM
Memo to Officer Lopez:
Protecting and Serving; you're doing it wrong.
Raising a responsible son; ditto.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 24, 2009 2:26 PM
a small ray of hope. an ill. court ruled internal affairs files are public record even when the cop is cleared.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-police-files-recordsjul24,0,7643976.story
Posted by: khefera | July 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Remember the Reagan era horror over the notorious NWA (rap) song? There is a reason for the rage in that song.
Posted by: BKM | July 24, 2009 2:49 PM
BTW Nobody has mentioned the linked article's headline:
"Store video catches cop bullying woman"
Note that is the main philly newspaper's website. I think it illustrates the complacency which familiarity breeds.
Posted by: rpsms | July 24, 2009 3:53 PM
And who watches the watchmen?
Posted by: Red John | July 24, 2009 4:12 PM
Gosh, I wonder why this suddenly appeared here? It's a miracle! A sign from God! Seriously...this is the sort of reason I strongly support the notion of all cop cars having surveillance cameras. If we were really lucky ex-wives and/or spurned lovers would also have surveillance cameras so that claims of abuse towards them or children could be seen for what they are. Of course an even better idea would be to avoid those pragmatic, thinking drama queens that are fairly well portrayed as "SP" types in the Meyers Briggs system. Granted, not the finest science or psychology..but a good thumbnail view. None of this should be taken as a defense of genuine scoff laws, sexual predators or criminals. Simply saying that sometimes liars carry a badge, sometimes people lie just to get their way and sometimes people lie for no reason other than ensuring they continue to look good and someone else looks bad. It is the sort of thing that could cost someone nearly twenty years of their life.
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 24, 2009 8:52 PM
Taz, it seems to me that real life is not like TV police dramas. IIRC in TV police dramas, internal affairs investigations are very serious things that get the corrupt cops and leave the good cops are free to do their jobs. IRL, IA investigations consists of,
Investigator, "Hey man, did you rough up that bitch?"
Investigated, "Nah man."
Investigator, "Sweet. Shove the evidence in the back of a drawer and let's go, we're late for league night."
Posted by: tincture | July 24, 2009 9:03 PM
Mike Olson: That's one rambling, incoherent post you've got there.
Calling this a travesty just doesn't do it justice. How do you respond to a situation like this where the people who's job it is to make the system work refuse to do so? One would hope that the next time the DA in question runs for office, this video gets played over and over on local television with a voice over about how he or she refused to prosecute this barbarian.
Posted by: Julian | July 25, 2009 9:17 AM