PAPD Sting Operation Exposed

Video of the Naked Truth:

Palo Alto Police Officer refuses to identify himself and instead verbally berates Palo Alto Citizen. Apparently, the PAPD needs to justify its $150,000.00 average annual salary by pimping out young females in order to entrap unsuspecting citizens into buying them alcohol.

Bravo Palo Alto City Council, way to go in your direction to City Manager James Keene and Police Chief Dennis Burns on how to use the Peoples’ money.

At approximately 8:10 pm on Friday April 27, 2012 I was propositioned by two, probably underage, girls to purchase alcohol for them at the Palo Alto downtown “7-11” Store located on the corner of Waverley St. and Litton Ave.

It became apparent that this was at the direction of the Palo Alto Police Department through Officer Michael Kan whom I mistook for Officer David Lee. When I asked for the Officer’s name he stated that it was, “Get the Fuck Out Of Here.”

Now if I stated that to a Palo Alto Police Officer upon request for my name I would be arrested for obstruction to justice or something. Is not what’s good for the gander not good for the goose, why does the Palo Alto Police get to commit the same act when citizens cannot?

Is the Palo Alto Police above the law, I thought somewhere when a citizen requests that a Law Enforcement Officer Identify him/her-self he/she must do so.

When did Palo Alto Police Officers get the Constitutional Right to dictate to citizens whether or not they could exist on a public street given that a Palo Alto Police Officer directed me to “GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!” even though there was no justification for ordering me to do so?

When Officer Michael Kan responded by stating to, “GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE,” he violated my 1st. Amendment Right to Free Speech and my 4th Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable seizure, and my 14th Amendment Right to Liberty without due process of law.

Now I would question this particular officer’s actions as being limited to himself, however given that at least two other under-cover officers overheard and or witnessed the interaction between Officer Michael Kan and myself, that means that at least three officers including the two pimped out females witnessed the Constitutional Violations.

Knowing how Chief Dennis Burns covered up the crimes of Michael Kan when he and Craig Daniel Lee beat Albert Hopkins, and how Chief Dennis Burns covered up the crimes of Officers Kelly Burger, April Wagner and Manuel Temores, I have no doubt that Dennis Burns and IPA Michael Gennaco will soft soap Michael Kan’s and his immediate supervisors’, the under covers listening in, unethical and unconstitutional acts in order to falsely portray the Palo Alto Police to the Public.

http://harrisandrosen.weebly.com/

I put it to you Mayor Yiway Yey, do you think that Palo Alto Police Officers out there pimping out young girls in order to entrap citizens purchasing alcohol is a wise expense of the Peoples’ money?

Will you hold Officer Kan accountable for violating my Constitutional Rights or are you too cowardly controlled by liability issues in order to do the right thing to even respond to this inquiry?

5 Replies to “PAPD Sting Operation Exposed”

  1. April 28, 2012

    Hi Tony,

    From my archives here is a piece I sent out in 2005 re the criminal trial of PAPD officer Michael Kan. The case also involved the then defendant–fellow PAPD officer Craig Lee—who also remains on the PAPD to this day.

    I would be very troubled if it turns out that PAPD officer Michael Kan engaged in the conduct you describe from last night in your extensive e-mail.

    I think if your video captured officer Michael Kan engaged in alleged police misconduct– you should forward your video to DA Jeff Rosen, and also call for a meeting with PAPD police chief Dennis Burns. I would be happy to attend any such meeting.

    Aram

    P.S. I have also copied this e-mail to Assistant DA Peter Waite, who prosecuted/tried Officer Michael Kan and Officer Craig Lee for the brutal beating of Albert Hopkins.

    5/3/2005

    To: District Attorney George Kennedy & Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu

    Re: Request that your office retry the criminal case against Palo Alto officers Craig Lee and Michael Kan

    Dear Mr. George Kennedy & Ms. Karyn Sinunu:

    I am writing to you to request that your office retry the criminal case against Palo Alto police officers Michael Kan and Craig Lee. I would like to make some observations and comments regarding the recently completed trial in this matter wherein the jury ultimately hung 8 to 4 for guilty. I would then like to comment on the importance of this case being retried. I hope you will consider all of my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended.

    Comments re the recently completed trial of Defendants Kan & Lee

    · First I think it is important to acknowledge the fine work performed during the course of all of the proceedings in this matter by Deputy District Attorney Peter Waite. Not only was his preparation and presentation of the case outstanding, but it was apparent that his confidence in the strength of the case grew as the matter proceeded. No doubt the case was not tried without some mistakes and at least one questionable judgment call, but, given all of the many pressures and roles being balanced, it was an outstanding job. By the time the case went to the jury it was my observation/opinion that Mr. Waite had outperformed the very talented attorneys for the defendants. (I sat through the entire PX and trial in this matter.)

    · From the perspective of a former public defender and trial lawyer it was clear to me that Mr. Waite and his investigative team (Sgt. Mike Denson and Sgt. Ron Watson from the PAPD) left few stones unturned in an effort to assure that the prosecution in this matter was both professionally managed and aggressively pursued.

    · I had no sense during the trial of this matter, despite the obvious political pressures and ramifications for the entire prosecution team, that at any time that the prosecution team treated this case lightly or in any fashion differently than any other serious felony matter. Finally, Mr. Waite, in an example that more public servants should model, made himself available to members of the public who had endless questions for and observations to share with him.

    · During the jury selection process in this case Mr. Waite’s questions and the nature of the responses by prospective jurors re the role of race, racial profiling, the right of citizens to be free of undue and unwarranted harassment by the police etc., were both fascinating and instructive re the current public mood towards law enforcement. Had the voir dire process been taped it would have made a provocative documentary on the current status of the relationship between law enforcement and the community. As indicted by the responses during voir dire, as it currently stands, the relationship appears tenuous at best.

    · There were numerous jurors who expressed just barely restrained anger re the recent killing of Bic Cau Tran by San Jose police officer Chad Marshall and similarly deep concern re other recent high profile killings by members of the SJPD.

    · What came across strongest from the jury selection process is that both the depth and width of anger and concern over misconduct by law enforcement in this county is much greater than reflected by the mainstream media in Santa Clara County. Whereas the conventional wisdom has been that police cases are hard to successfully prosecute in this county the current dynamically shifting demographics, combined with a well-informed citizenry re police misconduct issues, may well have changed the landscape permanently. Given the above, it would appear that police prosecutions are much more like to be successful in this county now and in the future.

    · During the course of the jury selection the defense exercised a peremptory challenge against the one black female who made it into the jury box. Given the quality of her responses to the questions posed by attorneys for both sides it was clear that this prospective juror was totally free of bias for either side.

    · Despite the fact that Mr. Waite made an appropriate Batson/Wheeler objection that the defense, specifically attorney Harry Stern, had exercised the challenge in a in a racially discriminatory fashion the judge, Andrea Bryan, declined to ask defense council for a showing of specific bias (to establish a race–neutral reasons for the strike) or to find a prima facie case for requiring a response by the defense. The judge should have reseated the juror in the presence of the entire panel as a clear message to the defense that the racist removal of a fair minded juror would not be tolerated. (Case law clearly supports the notion that one race based peremptory challenge is sufficient to trigger the remedies contemplated by Batson/Wheeler and its descendants.)

    · Given that only three African-Americans were in the initial jury panel of approximately 160 perspective jurors called for in this case, there is little doubt that the discriminatory strike of the one black female to make it into the jury box denied the people a jury made up of a cross-section of the community and thus a fair trial.

    · The following quotes serve as a reminder of the impact of a discriminatory challenge based on race in the context of this case: … “The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community.” Batson V. Kentucky, 476 U.S, at 77 (1986).

    · “The need for public confidence is especially high in cases involving race-related crimes. In such cases, emotions in the affected community will inevitably be heated and volatile. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system is essential for preserving community peace in trials involving race related crimes.” (Citations omitted). Finally, as to Judge Bryan’s role in denying the community a fair trial the following is pertinent: “Be it at the hands of the state or the defense, if a court allows the juror to be excluded because of group bias, it is a willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the very foundation of our system of justice—our citizens’ ” (citations omitted).

    · In addition to the failure of Judge Andrea Bryan to perform her constitutional responsibility to ensure the selection of a fair jury in this matter it was apparent that the court allowed the atmosphere surrounding the trial to favor the defense. Not only did the court appear to bend over backwards to rule in favor of the defense on issues where you would normally not expect such favorable rulings, but the court personnel, including the bailiffs, routinely acted with favoritism to members of law enforcement. This included providing preferential seating in the courtroom to members of law enforcement, to allowing outbursts by law enforcement spectators to go unpunished while, at the same time, closely monitoring the conduct of non-law enforcement citizens in the courtroom to the point of a constitutional chill on access.

    · Despite all of the efforts by the court and its personnel to tamper with the jury selection, evidentiary rulings, deny equal access to the courtroom to the public versus members of law enforcement, all in a thinly veiled attempt to direct a verdict of acquittal, 8 members of the community still rendered a verdict of guilty refusing, in the greatest tradition of independent jurors, to buckle under the weight of the intimidating atmosphere allowed to exist by Judge Andrea Bryan. All of this speaks volumes re the strength of the evidence in this case and the fine job done by the prosecution team.

    · Despite the fact that only 8 of the 12 jurors in this case voted for guilty the verdict was still one of historic proportions in Santa Clara County. I know of no other case in recent Santa Clara County history where 8 jurors have voted to convict police officers for the beating of an African-American citizen. This result calls out for a retrial.

    Conclusion re why case should be retried.

    · Community sentiment: I have enclosed an editorial from the Palo Alto Daily News, Accused officers should be retried, April 20, 2005, outlining some of the reasons why this case should be retried and encouraging your office to do so, both in the interest of the Palo Alto Police Department and the Community at large.

    · Given the statements attributed to Karyn Sinunu in the San Jose Mercury News (enclosed), (April 19, 2005), that the district attorney usually retries hung juries and given that in this case 8 citizens voted for guilty under the difficult conditions described in the first section of this letter, failure to do so in this case would feed into the perception that there is two standards of justice in this community, one for the ordinary citizen and one for police officers.

    · Given comments in a recent article in The Recorder, April 27, 2005, that there will be a chase for endorsements by police and law enforcement groups by the presumed candidates for District Attorney in 2006, and given Ms. Sinunu’s apparent intent to run for this position, failure to retry this case might well be seen as decision based on political expediency rather than the merits of retying this case.

    · It is clear that this case would likely not have come to light but for the courageous act of a few “whistle blowing” members of the PAPD willing to break down the traditional “code of silence” that so perniciously permeates much of law enforcement in this community. By the jury’s verdict in this case the community has spoken: it is time, once and for all, to send the message that the so-called “code of silence” will no longer be tolerated by those we entrust with the awesome power of the badge. Failure to retry this case would discourage officers in the future to speak out against rogue officers in their ranks and, as result, put the public at risk of more unwarranted beatings and deaths.

    · Given all of the above, the strength of the evidence presented in the first trial, the resources and efforts expended by the prosecution, the strong likelihood of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt at a second trial, the efforts of the trial judge to sabotage the prosecution’s case in the first trial, and the strong public support for a retrial in this matter it is my request that you exercise your prosecutorial discretion in favor of a retrial in this case.

    Sincerely,

    Aram James

    Citizen Advocate

    1. Bravo, Aram!

      It’s sad to see that our glorious Country is still under the repression from Police officers in some cities. Travelling worldwide I have seen that the perception of the world is that US is a huge prison camp under the fear exercised by armed forces, including Police, while Judges keep silent.
      So, please keep up that great work of yours defending people like me who have been a victim of Police brutality for just asking for mercy for that poor being harassed by a monster wearing a Police uniform in Mountain View. I do not forget…

      Best of luck, our friend!

      Julian

  2. Response to Mr. Ciampi:

    I watched the video, Tony.

    I have to ask: What indications, proof, connection did you find between the girls asking you to get them liquor and the undercover cops?

    They certainly sound and seem to have acted like cops sometimes do when confronted by someone who is questioning them. (THEY like to ask the tough questions.)

    But could they have been there to catch what the girls wanted (someone buying them liquor) but unbeknownst to the girls? I assume they were close to the girls, but did the girls figure out they were cops? I’m just asking because it’s a linchpin of your accusation.

    Even if the girls are working for/with the cops, aren’t cops allowed to arrest someone buying liquor for underage drinkers whether or not it’s a sting? Actually, I think it’s ATF officers who police underage drinking, isn’t it?

    But what connects the cops to the girls? Other than both being in a location where there is at least potential underage liquor being purchased?

    Mind you, I have no sympathy with such stings. It happened to a friend of mine at Happy Donuts and a completely innocent woman went through a lot of tsouris before it all got settled. Totally unnecessary. She was no more selling cigarettes to underage kids than I would. I despise smoking cigarettes–it’s legal murder for profit–just a lot slower than a gun, but every bit as reliable. In my friend’s case, the “authorities” bamboozled,confused, and arrested her. She had survived the Killing Fields in her native Cambodia, “three years, six months, and forty-two days” of it. She lived in refugee camps for seven more years. So she could come here and endure mickey mouse entrapment.

    But I digress to another injustice. Back to yours.

    To make your case–that cops are using underage girls to entrap you or anyone–you have to show a strong connection between the girls and the apparently undercover cops. It has to be more than a firm suspicion or just the fact that they were all in close proximity to each other. YOU were in that same proximity and not part of any plot, right? How do you know the girls were just “innocently” trying to get anyone to buy them alcohol and the cops were there independently? There has to be evidence of a connection.

    I’m not attacking your position. I’m saying that for your position–as I understand it–to be strong, to be valid–it needs that connection.

    Chuck

  3. Chuck, the issue isn’t about the sting operation, for such conduct is legal to perform as you so noted. The question is, why do police need to use conniving and unscrupulous tactics in protecting the peace of the public as peace officers? It is one thing to go after individuals who are known to violate the law but it is an entirely different philosophy to actually create crime in order to justify your paycheck.

    The real issue is about how Palo Alto Police Officer Michael Kan conducted himself when confronted about the sting operation. Instead of becoming irate and berating a citizen with profanity, he should have laughed it off and went to another location as I am sure he did.

    1. [correction to the article titled: PAPD Sting Operation Exposed}

      Be advised, the article, “PAPD Sting Operation Exposed,” published by Tony Ciami is an Opinion Piece and should have been framed in the context of “‘ALLEGED’ Sting Operation” despite that fact that there is further evidence not cited to corroborate the allegation.

Comments are closed.