Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A federal judge has ripped into the NYPD for a long pattern of police officers lying on arrest reports and in court to frame innocent people. This is the judge in a case I wrote about a few months ago where two brothers were arrested for allegedly selling cocaine, but a surveillance video from the bar where they were arrested showed that virtually the entire police report was fabricated.
A respected federal judge slammed the NYPD Monday as plagued by "widespread falsification by arresting officers."Brooklyn Federal Judge Jack Weinstein delivered the disturbing appraisal in a four-page decision refusing to throw out a multimillion dollar suit against the city filed by two men who were busted on bogus narcotics charges.
Here's what the judge actually said:
Weinstein, a 40-year veteran of the bench, was not persuaded by the city's claim that there is no evidence that police lying is condoned as an official policy."Informal inquiry by [myself] and among the judges of this court, as well as knowledge of cases in other federal and state courts ... has revealed anecdotal evidence of repeated, widespread falsification by arresting officers of the New York City Police Department," Weinstein wrote.
He said that while the vast majority of cops don't engage in crooked practices, it was common enough to be an institutional problem.
The judge said that despite better training for recruits and tough disciplinary action for bad cops, "there is some evidence of an attitude among officers that is sufficiently widespread to constitute a custom or policy by the city approving illegal conduct."
And it's not just a problem in New York. Think of all the cases that I've reported on in the last few years where police have been found to be lying on arrest reports after video or audio evidence has come to light that they officers didn't know existed, or where officers have been caught on video threatening violence on someone or threatening to frame them for something.
The only reason we know about those cases is because the video or audio evidence happened to show up. It would be foolish to believe that more than a fraction of such instances have been caught. Imagine how many people have been railroaded before there was video evidence, or where there is no such evidence available now.
We don't have any way of knowing for sure how many times police have flat out lied to make a case stronger, or to frame someone entirely, but it is almost certainly many times more than the number of times it's been caught. This is clearly not just a small problem, it's a serious problem. And yet juries and the public automatically give credence to what police officers say and give them far more credibility than they do to regular citizens, at least some of whom are being framed and victimized by dishonest cops.
Bravo to a federal judge speaking out about this. We need to take this issue far more seriously and start throwing police officers in jail every single time they are caught lying in the course of their job. Police should be held to a far higher standard than others precisely because they are given so much more credibility than civilians are.
Politics
Comments
It would be nice if they were "held to a far higher standard than others precisely because they are given so much more credibility than civilians are."
But, hell, I would settle for just being held to the same standard as civilians are to start with.
Posted by: DavidR | December 4, 2009 10:04 AM
It'd be nice to hear that Scalia perused this judge's opinion given Scalia's allowing the government to encroach on our 'castle doctrine' rights because of law enforcement's supposed professionalism. Even if he did, I doubt the lesson would sink in.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 4, 2009 10:07 AM
I've said it before, government employees should automatically get twice as much punishment as a normal citizen for every crime (maybe not all employees, but the ones who have significant powers over other citizens, hell yeah!).
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 4, 2009 10:08 AM
This is my theory: the cops grow up watching things like CSI (and its cop show antecedents) and have this idea that the police are actually supposed to solve a majority of their cases. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen very often in real life, so they make shit up and falsely arrest people.
Posted by: Tacroy | December 4, 2009 10:19 AM
And yet juries and the public automatically give credence to what police officers say ...
So when does this stop? Have we learned nothing since the 1950s? Didn't we all see cops beating civil rights protestors in the 1960s? Didn't we see Rodney King beaten and injured in the 1990s? Allegations of the fabrication of evidence in the OJ case? Waco, anyone? Ruby Ridge? "Don't tase me, bro?"
When do juries just begin to automatically assume the opposite? That cops are lying, violent assholes who will say and do anything without regard for truth, justice, or the American way? And what does that mean for society when everyone's first thoughts are that the police are lying?
Are we there yet? Does anyone really believe anything any government official ever says, anymore, at all? If so, why?
Welcome to the Banana Republic - may I see your passport, please?
Posted by: threetorches | December 4, 2009 10:26 AM
"When do juries just begin to automatically assume the opposite? That cops are lying, violent assholes who will say and do anything without regard for truth, justice, or the American way?"
Well, the way jury selection works the prosecution and defense collude to get the least informed most suggestible people possible on the panel. I've been called for jury duty a half dozen or so times in the past decade. I make no effort to get out as I view it as a civic duty. I show up, answer honestly and inevitably whenever I answer a question in a way that indicates that I'm capable of analyzing the evidence presented without being swayed by the gambits of either attorney team they make a quick note and after the next recess I find myself excused.
On paper I'm an ideal juror: college educated middle class white collar worker who keeps current on politics, social policy, and science. Yet I'm always one of the first people excused aside from those who can't serve due to hardships or conflict of interest.
Posted by: Rev Matt | December 4, 2009 10:58 AM
Not to let the cops off the hook, but where are the prosecutors in all this? They could do a lot to curb this sort of behavior. The police wouldn't pull these stunts if they weren't pretty sure that someone had their backs--and those someones aren't always other cops.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 4, 2009 11:11 AM
Changes of synaptic connections between neurons are thought to be the physiological basis of learning. These changes can be gated by neuromodulators that encode the presence of reward.
Posted by: sikiş izle | December 4, 2009 11:21 AM
Voir dire on its face -- a process for ensuring an unbiased jury -- is a fraud. The judge, the prosecutor, and the defense all work in concert to purge the jury of anybody who does not trust prosecutors, judges, lawyers, or cops.
Consider the business models of the three. A judge, or prosecutor, who doesn't get enough convictions will be fired for incompetence. The defense attorney's best practice is to use up all available money delaying the trial and then presenting the defense, and finally getting a conviction. Why a conviction? Because an acquittal means no more money. A conviction means if more money shows up then there can be appeals.
Our justice system was broken centuries ago. The right to trial was subverted by the ploy of accusing the patsy of horrible crimes, scaring him into copping a plea, innocent or not. Cases almost never go to trial, and when they do, the three parties to the show -- the bench, the prosecution, and the defense -- are all interested in getting convictions.
The prosecution and the defense pretend to be mortal enemies, but off the clock they are buddies, just a couple of shysters fleecing the marks.
The hell of it is, there is no fix. The cops control who becomes cops. To pass probation, a rookie has to pass a number of field tests. He has to accept his share of windfalls, and has to be seen to spend it, not book it as evidence. He has to perjure himself to cover his buddies' backs. If his partner takes drugs, he has to take drugs. He has to be seen by many witnesses to commit many crimes, or he will be sabotaged and fired, or get killed.
And Internal Affairs does not police the police. They exist to keep problems from turning into lawsuits.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | December 4, 2009 11:46 AM
Rev Matt - Tell me about it.
I have a friend with serious problems. He hasn't been on jury duty for decade or so because when he gets to the part of the paperwork where they ask if there's any reason he shouldn't be on a jury, he writes "Psychotic alcoholic." (Which happens to be true.)
Okay, that's reasonable, but I have a condition that's exactly as disqualifying: a couple of science degrees. When I get to a voir-dire, I'm always 86'd after a few questions about this; it's clear the lawyers are afraid I might actually understand the forensic evidence.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 4, 2009 11:46 AM
And once again, one more reason for all police everywhere to be required to wear video & audio recording equipment at all times while on duty. Video to be available to the public (if that's possible, I don't know what the laws are for that sort of thing), and audio to be available only with a court order in the pursuit of investigation of a crime (to protect the day-to-day to privacy of conversations between officers). The government's always telling us citizens that we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide; well, that's certainly true for the police as well.
Posted by: Uncephalized | December 4, 2009 12:40 PM
Re Rev Matt
Well, the way jury selection works the prosecution and defense collude to get the least informed most suggestible people possible on the panel.
Oddly enough, it wasn't always this way. A million years ago, I read a book by the writer Quentin Reynolds about the career of criminal defense attorney and later judge Samuel Lebowitz. One of the trials recounted was that of a man accused of murder where the evidence was based on ballistics tests of a weapon he owned. Since Lebowitz was planning to challenge the police ballistic expert, he actually wanted people on the jury with a technical background who would understand the issues that his expert would raise and was able to get two jurors with engineering degrees. Needless to say, his expert totally destroyed the testimony of the police departments' expert and Lebowitz got an acquittal. Incidentally, what would be the odds now that a criminal defense attorney would be appointed to a judgeship in todays' world? Virtually all judges these days are former prosecutors.
Posted by: SLC | December 4, 2009 12:48 PM
The one jury I sat on was a rape case that involved DNA evidence. I was surprised that I was kept on the jury, as I work for a biotech company and my office at the time was less than 50 meters from about a dozen DNA sequence analyzers. When I was asked about my familiarity with DNA by the judge and started to explain this, both attorneys shot back from their tables in their wheeled chairs and looked at me like I was an alien life form.
Posted by: Pieter B | December 4, 2009 12:53 PM
@threetorches: I don't think anyone is suggesting that the testimony of ordinary citizens should be weighed more than that of police officers in a court of law. I think the objection is to how much more weight is given to police testimony, and the general failure to hold police accountable when they are caught in a lie.
But given your replies on the Chopra thread ("There is a totally different meaning of the word that would make Chopra only half wrong! This is really important!") I suspect you are just being contrary...
Posted by: James Sweet | December 4, 2009 12:56 PM
@cephalized:
I mostly agree with your post, but somewhat disagree with this. I think the video&audio should only be available by subpoena. There are two reasons: First, we don't want cops working in an atmosphere where they feel like their productivity is constantly being monitored, and they are going to get reprimanded for taking a 5-minute coffee break -- because that kind of environment is poisonous to morale, and the tiny gains in productivity are overwhelmed by people just doing a shitty job. Second, we would not want to create a situation where frivolous claims could be constantly brought based on trivial minutiae or speculation, because it would be woefully inefficient and further bog down the courts.
I think a lot of the problem can be solved just by making it available via subpoena. If there is a dispute about an arrest report, and the outcome of the dispute would effect the results of a court case, subpoena the tapes and verify it. If there is a credible claim of police abuse, bring a civil suit and subpoena the tapes.
I have some limited sympathy for cops not wanting to be videoed all the time. I mean, if my employer decided they were going to put a video camera in every employee's office, I would start looking for a new job. I don't need that kind of stress. So I understand why cops are uncomfortable with that.
But their job is also a helluva lot more important than mine, and this is the price they have to pay. I think that by limiting the access to situations where it would reflect the outcome of a criminal or civil case, it would address a lot of the understandable concerns that cops have about being constantly videoed on the job.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 4, 2009 1:04 PM
James, I simply noted that it is not good for society to see repeated examples of pernicious or illegal behavior by those charged with maintaining the peace or enforcing the laws.
And what does that mean for society when everyone's first thoughts are that the police are lying?
.
I am not sure why my lament that social cohesion depends on being able to trust those in positions of authority, which trust seems to be eroding, is seen as "being contrary."
It was along the lines of, "gee, what a shame that it seems to be increasingly difficult to trust law enforcement... oh, wait, there are examples of abuse of power and authority going way, way back in time ..."
I am merely pointing out that it IS NOT SURPRISING and that it has been going on FOR A LONG TIME and yet we are still told that people, particularly juries, "give credence to what cops say."
And I wonder: is that true? Or do a lot of us automatically assume the opposite, that cops are lying sacks of shit, until it is proved otherwise?
Where do YOU, dear reader, put the burden of proof? On the accused, or on the accuser? I assert: The time has come to first disbelieve the cop, until proved otherwise.
At what point in the Fall of the Roman Empire did the citizenry stop viewing the Centurions as heros and defenders, and start to assume "well, that asshole must be here to steal something else from us ..." That point marks a change in attitude toward government, authority, and those charged with serving and protecting. It marks a shift toward viewing cops as just another gang. Are we there yet? I don't know; but I wonder.
.
(And yes, playing "devil's advocate" on the Chopra thread has been a lot of fun!)
Posted by: threetorches | December 4, 2009 1:53 PM
One thing that would help a lot is for police abuse of power to be rated highly in prosecutor's performance evaluations. There are "sexy" cases like rape and murder and bank robbery. There are really unsexy ones like zoning violations.
I think a seriously dirty cop is at least as bad as a flasher or a peeping tom or one of those other demonized "sexual offenders".
(We still need proportionality. Not ticketing your buddies' parked cars is technically corruption, but hardly grounds to ruin a career.)
Posted by: Cynic | December 4, 2009 3:21 PM
A lot of this goes tot eh way police are graded. They get points for bringing in credible suspects and they get more points if the person they bring in gets convicted.
They lose points if they don't bring in suspects, fail to cite enough evidence to hold the person, if there is insufficient evidence for the DA to make a case, or if they get off on procedural grounds because the arresting officer didn't follow procedure.
There is a lot there to motivate a certain level of 'sweetening' the evidence. Part of this is how police are taught in the training. The signs a person is about to become violent are listed in class. They include staring, rapid breathing, and balling of the fists. This is useful to know.
But it also becomes a reflexive, default, script for justifying violence against a person. When asked why they beat someone down with their stick they automatically say they though the person was about to become violent and then they recite the signs they learned in class. I saw him a,b,c... entirely independent of whether they saw any of it or not. A beat down has to be justified. Therefore if they give a beat down they must have been justified. And the reasons for a beat down are because they saw a,b,d ...
Possibly an out and out lie but also possibly simple, and entirely human, retroactive memory insertion.
Also the way reports are written always emphasizes the worse possible interpretation of any facts. Police make cases. They are in the business of finding fault and providing the DA with material to lock people up. The DAs make their reputation on their conviction rate. they are interested in locking up as many people as possible for as long as possible.
Posted by: Art | December 4, 2009 3:27 PM
Plus there’s the “Been there, arrested that” factor. A lot of police work tends to be the same thing over and over. So it’s easy to slip into mental shorthand and make up your mind very early about who’s guilty and who’s innocent. The official phrase is “Based on my training and experience…” but it really boils down to “My gut says…” And like all human beings, once they’ve made up their mind about something it’s hard to change it.
Lastly, let’s be fair and acknowledge that the rules of evidence have gotten more and more convoluted over the past several decades. When you see case after case get thrown out not for questions of guilt or innocence, but for technical evidentiary reasons that even judges & law professors can’t agree on, it’s easy to believe “It’s all just a game, so screw it.”
To be clear: I’m not defending any of this. I’m just explaining where I think it comes from.
Posted by: WScott | December 4, 2009 3:29 PM
Posted by: WScott | December 4, 2009 3:39 PM
@19 WScott I think you are right about the idea that they are guilty of something. Has anyone compared the attitude of cops to criminal in both high and low crime areas? Do we know anything about how to prevent people from developing that attitude?
Posted by: katydid13 | December 4, 2009 4:18 PM
Aww, why do we always hear the disgusting cop stories? I have good cop story (except it happens on the other side of the planet). A few weeks ago I had to run or risk falling on the ground laughing hysterically in public. It seems some silly cow was offended at the sight of a kid wearing some religious garb so she was annoying a cop by telling him that she's got some suspicious activity to report. I can't remember much of the conversation now, but there was something like:
cow: "I'm telling you, he looks like a terrorist."
cop: "Really? Well, if you can tell me what a terrorist looks like I'm sure the entire police force will be grateful for your contribution."
Posted by: MadScientist | December 5, 2009 1:03 AM