Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is another appalling but entirely unsurprising story from the world of police corruption. Two cops in Roberta, Georgia are convicted of filling out false police reports and here's what happens:
Roberta Police Chief Jackie Cooper says Capt. Scott Moore and part-time Patrolman Floyd Berger serve time beginning at 8 a.m. Saturday morning until 4 p.m. Sunday evening. When Monday rolls around, Moore returns to work and Berger continues to work several days a week.Their stay stems from an incident back in January of 2007 where Assistant District Attorney Neil Halvorson says the pair found cocaine on a man, but reported he had possession of marijuana, a lesser charge.
And the chief is rather blase` about the whole thing:
The judge sentenced them to five consecutive weekends in the Crawford County Jail. The pair will finish up this coming weekend and there's no sign they'll be kicked off the force."There's no reason not to use them. Their certification is intact," Cooper said...
Ryan Powell with the Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Council says they've had an open case on both officers since 2007. A council voted to revoke both Moore's and Berger's certifications, but both men appealed the decision and are awaiting a hearing. Powell says the men may still serve on the force until their case is closed.
Oh, of course. There's no reason not to use cops who have either pled guilty or been convicted of filing false police reports. None at all.
Politics
Comments
This story is a little weird. Usually when we hear about cops filing false reports they've arrested people on trumped up charges, rather than lesser charges.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 22, 2009 9:14 AM
Anyone remember to copy Scalia and Thomas in on this? I'm sure they'll want to know about it.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 22, 2009 9:16 AM
Maybe that's why they're serving any time at all, Captain Mike.
Posted by: MikeG | September 22, 2009 9:27 AM
Halvorson says the two were charged with making a false statement in writing, a felony, and false report of a crime, a misdemeanor. Moore went to trial where a jury found him guilty of the misdemeanor. Berger plead guilty to the misdemeanor prior to trial.
Ummmm, what happened to the felony? My gut tells me that the DA, likely knowing the officers, opted to pursue only the lesser misdemeanor "false report" charges and ignored the felony "false statement" charges. Far more than the weekday release, or even the still serving while their status is determined, the apparent vanishing felony charges bother me.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 22, 2009 9:41 AM
Maybe the reason they stuck him with a lesser charge was because they "confiscated" some of his cocaine. The other police that caught them may have been too embarrassed to include that in their report.
Posted by: Julian | September 22, 2009 9:43 AM
@1:
"Usually when we hear about cops filing false reports they've arrested people on trumped up charges, rather than lesser charges."
Unless a) the arrestee is a friend and there's some reason you can't let him off completely, or b) you wanna keep the cocaine.
Posted by: Equisetum | September 22, 2009 9:45 AM
Or maybe the cops and DA were simply using some discretion in the matter. A lot of cops and prosecutors don't like the War on Drugs.
I must admit I don't have any problems at all with discretion being used in victimless crimes.
Posted by: gingerbaker | September 22, 2009 10:01 AM
Seems to me that any cases these two are involved in are doomed:
[Ficititous criminal case]
Defense Atty: "Officer Berger, you were convicted of filing a false police report, is that correct?"
Berger: "Yes."
Defense Atty: "And you actually spent time in jail for that conviction, is that correct?"
Berger: "Yes."
...
Defense atty then uses this to impeach anything and everything the officer has touched in the case.
A couple repetitions of that oughta get them dropped from the force.
Posted by: Steve | September 22, 2009 10:14 AM
This story makes no sense. They were sent to jail but not kicked out of the police force? I don't understand. It's not just police corruption, it's bizarre insano land. I don't understand why there isn't some kind of mandatory police misconduct rule - ie. you fuck up so badly as to go jail you lose your job. Surely there wouldn't even be a question about it in most police forces. It seems to damage the credibility of the police force so much.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 22, 2009 11:00 AM
[Ficititous criminal case, altered to conform with reality]
Defense Atty: "Officer Berger, you were convicted of filing a false police report, is that correct?"
Prosecuting Atty: "Objection, your honor. Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial."
Judge: "Sustained."
And if the DA pushes any further he winds up with a charge of contempt of court.
Posted by: mad the swine | September 22, 2009 11:05 AM
"I don't understand why there isn't some kind of mandatory police misconduct rule - ie. you fuck up so badly as to go jail you lose your job. Surely there wouldn't even be a question about it in most police forces. It seems to damage the credibility of the police force so much. "
Well, this isn't a case of, say, moonlighting as armed robbers on the weekend. He was convicted of filing a false report, something every single policeman has done at some point in his career. His bosses aren't going to say 'We've got to get this guy off the force'; they're going to say 'There, but for the grace of God, go I' and cut him as much slack as possible.
Posted by: mad the swine | September 22, 2009 11:10 AM
mad the swine
or
Defense Atty: "Officer Berger, you were convicted of filing a false police report, is that correct?"
Prosecuting Atty: "Objection, your honor. Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial."
Defense Atty: "Goes to the witnesses credibility, your Honor."
Judge: "Overruled. Witness will answer the question."
---------
IANAL, and I have no idea which of our scenarios is correct.
Posted by: Taz | September 22, 2009 11:11 AM
Taz: Both, although more the MtS version. The judge will rule your way in open court -- she really doesn't have a choice. But the lawyer is going to get some educating in Chambers later.
This is the same as taking on a suit against a law enforcement agency: If you are in the LEE jurisdiction, you don't take it; if you do take it, you file the suit in another jurisdiction.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 22, 2009 11:35 AM
So why did all the Mark Furman evidence get shown in the OJ trial? Isn't that the same thing? Or is the OJ trial such an aberration that it counts for nothing.
Posted by: KeithB | September 22, 2009 12:46 PM
mad the swine writes: He was convicted of filing a false report, something every single policeman has done at some point in his career.
There is so much wrong with this statement. You state it as if its just part of the job for police officers to lie in their reports from time to time. Even if they do, it doesn't excuse their criminal behaviour.
I do believe your case of rabies is progressing.
Posted by: The Other Lance | September 22, 2009 12:50 PM
Fuck that, I wish more cops would do things like this.
Drug raids = people bitching about an oppressive and corrupt drug enforcement system
Officers going easy on a guy upon finding drugs = outrageous police favoritism/corruption
pick your battles, i say
Posted by: JR | September 22, 2009 2:29 PM
So what happened to the cocaine? Did it end up in the cops' noses?
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 22, 2009 4:05 PM
Yeah, not appalled by this one. After the story about the fire chief shooting, I have trouble working up the ire over a couple cops going easy on a harmless drug charge.
Posted by: Twewi | September 22, 2009 6:24 PM
Twewi: Yes, except for one thing, and that is the dropping of the felony charges. I believe that Georgia is one of the jurisdictions where a convicted felon cannot carry a gun, and, hence, cannot be a cop. These guys got to slide. As a lawyer, I would probably be allowed to slide. Joe Citizen? Not so much, son, you've got highway beautification in your future.
I don't give a pass for double standards. This one stinks.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 22, 2009 6:49 PM
Roberta is right around the corner from me. I'm absolutely not condoning it, but I'm sure this is half "good old boy system" and half cost. Roberta is microscopic. They may be out of luck finding officers.
Still out of line though, sure they could borrow some officers from Houston County. We have a FINE force here. :D
Posted by: Cotku | September 23, 2009 9:36 AM
When I saw the header, I thought you were talking about the TV shows. The producers of Cops have a new show out called Inmates and I thought that was what you were talking about. ^_^
Posted by: Jonathan | September 24, 2009 7:13 AM
I am not a Georgia lawyer, but it looks like Georgia Code 24-9-84.1(a)(3) would allow use of the police officers' convictions to impeach their credibility:
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | September 24, 2009 4:01 PM