The human cost of doing police business and at what cost
Sex and more sex scandals
The human cost of doing police business and at what cost
Sex and more sex scandals
May 3, 2005
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 out performed 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 anytime 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 not 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.
This letter requesting a retrial of Kan & Lee was originally sent out on May 3, 2005. Ultimately the DA declined to retry the case against officers Kan & Lee. In a miscarriage of justice Kan & Lee were allowed to plead guilty to one count each of disturbing the peace, as an infraction, with a maximum punishment of a $250 fine.
Victim(s) statement to the Palo Alto Police
Victim(s) Maria Auxiliadora Moncada Flores, y Melissa Caceres Auxiliadora Moncada de Masatepe Nicaragua statement to the Palo Alto Police.
“El sospechoso violación a la víctima sobre una base diaria. El sospechoso ordenaría a tener relaciones sexuales. Si se negaba El sospechoso podría arrancarle la ropa y tener relaciones sexuales por la fuerza. La víctima sufrió una infección vaginal debido a violaciones repetidas y consiguió ayuda médica. El sospechoso amenaza con deportar a la víctima cada vez que ella se resiste “.
Dishonest Police and District Attorney’s
This is the stuff the Innocence Project should be all about. Getting at the truth before the conviction and providing support to those who find themselves faced with life in prison based on false police reports or coerced confessions perpetrated by Dishonest Police and District Attorney’s.
Heart wrenching stories of those found innocent and released from years of imprisonment can be found at the Innocence Project website.
The vast majority of those released from prison are the direct result of newly discovered DNA evidence pointing to an altogether different person or from coerced police confessions and evidence often times hidden from the defense by unscrupulous District Attorney’s for political gain.
One such cold case where the Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office sits center stage, is their attempt to build and fabricate a rape charge with evidence they themselves invented and or coerced from their victims and whom they allowed to flee the country.
Massive vaginal infection
The alleged crime is detailed in an emergency protective order outlining repeated rape having caused a massive vaginal infection described by Chief Sex Detective April Chan-Wagner. April Chan-Wagner was lead investigator.
Later discovered through an intercepted medical report from the victims own doctor, was evidence the vaginal disease was not the result of any sexual assault, but rather a yeast infection. Exculpatory evidence April Chan-Wagner and the DA’s office have continued to ignore.
Had a sexual assault occurred, the medical profession is under clear legal responsibility to report any such crimes. The Chan-Wagner report indicates the victim sought medical assistance to bolster her claims to the DA of repeated rape and was used to justify a phone wiretap of the editors’ apartment.
April Chan-Wagner is no stranger to her specialty in the sex business. She headed up and promoted a newly enacted city ordinance in Palo Alto to curb what she felt was a haven for sex crimes taking place in the Palo Alto massage therapy profession and is also known for constitutional rights violations.
Although, charges never resulted in the arrest of the editor of the Palo Alto Free Press, charges still stand and will not be prosecuted “at this time” as detailed in an email received by Chief Prosecutor Daniel Okonkwo in charge of this case. In other words, their opened ended.
No interest in solving crime
Disturbing, is the fact that District Attorney Jeff Rosen has absolutely no interest in solving this alleged crime, a crime with the potential of sending away the suspect for life in prison.
We suspect the District Attorney is protecting the police in not disclosing the actual police reports and tactics used which may have included illegal coercion.
We beleive, coercion to be an unethical tactic often used by police as in the now City of Palo Alto Police infamous David E. Carlson and Jorge Hernandez cases, an all to common occurrence according to the Innocence Project in which the DA’s office and the Palo Alto Police Department would like us all to forget.
Selective Prosecutorial Discretion. It is a criminal act of knowingly providing a false police report. DA’s are obligated to prosecute. But many simply choose to look the other way. As in this case, with Jeff Rosen.
Comment section closed. Those wishing to may send to firstname.lastname@example.org
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen painted a rosy picture of his office’s relationship with the city of Palo Alto last night, but a few residents who had run-ins with the police in the past begged to differ.
Rosen was in Palo Alto last night to speak to the city Council and give an update on the cases his office has been able to successfully prosecute thanks to Palo Alto’s help.
He mentioned Kariem McFarland, the man who broke into the late Steve Jobs Palo Alto mansion and stole the Apple co-founders wallet and a number of Apple devices. McFarland had been on a home burglary spree in four different counties before Palo Alto police got involved, Rosen said.
Huge meth ring busted
He also thanked the Palo Alto Police Department for its help in busting the biggest meth ring in Santa Clara County, when police from the city tracked a stolen iPhone to San Jose and in the process found $35 million worth of methamphetamine.
“When I told this story to my father he said. ‘They had $35 million worth of meth, but they couldn’t afford an iPhone?'” Rosen explain.
Two Palo Alto residents throw knock out punches at prosecutor
“That’s the kind of people we’re dealing with. “But two Palo Alto residents didn’t share Rosen’s enthusiasm for the Police Department.
Both Mark Petersen-Perez who claims he was falsely accused by police of raping his wife and stepdaughter, and Tony Ciampi who was offered a $35,000 settlement after he was pulled from his van by Palo Alto police and shot with stun guns, blasted Rosen and his office, saying that the system failed them.
In a heated moment, Petersen-Perez, who was never convicted, said that the allegations will follow him forever and called on Rosen to take action to help clear his name.
Petersen-Perez said his wife, who has since fled to Nicaragua, also robbed him of more than $35,000 and that prosecutors refused to hear his “exculpatory evidence.” Exculpatory evidence is the evidence that can prove defendant’s innocence.
“They just wanted to prosecute me, “he said. “It’s not just prosecuting; it’s persecuting,”.
Ciampi claims police lied, falsified reports and even tempered with video footage of his Tasing and arrest. “Pursuit of justice for everyone?” Ciampi asked, staring at Rosen. “Why not for me?”
Related story: The Justice System’s Imprisonment of Innocent Citizens
“An officer pulls over a car lacking a light to illuminate the license plate learns the driver is on probation and searches the vehicle. The black man driving the 1976 Chevrolet Nova contends his race and the car were the reasons police stopped him – and files a complaint with the Palo Alto Police Department.
So says Palo Alto’s independent auditor
A newly released report by the police department’s independent auditor found that the driver’s assertions were unwarranted. The incident was one of a couple of cases auditor Mike Gennaco of Los Angeles, a former federal prosecutor, reviewed as part of his job to review how the department handles misconduct complaints.
Gennaco provides reports to City Council a couple of times a year. His reports do not identify officers or the people who file complaints by name. “The traffic stop appears to be based on a minor, but clear-cut violation of the requirement to have functioning license plate illumination”. states Gennaco.
“The subsequent investigation was performed in courteous and business-like manner by the officer.'” Gennaco said both the patrol officer and a second officer conformed to police department requirements in their search of the car.
The driver was allowed to–depart in the car 16 minutes after being stopped. The auditor assesses for objectivity, thoroughness, and appropriateness the disposition of citizen complaint investigations of misconduct, according to the city website…….”
BY RYAN McCARTHY
Daily Post Staff Writer
The Daily Post is unavailable on-line. Additional information can be found in today’s copy of the Daily Post – Monday, April 23, 2012.
Each state has its own laws about what qualifies as a valid reason for revoking a police officer’s certification, which is awarded after the successful completion of training and is a prerequisite for most law enforcement positions.
Under Ohio law, peace officers’ certifications can be revoked if they plead guilty to a felony offense — which can range from drug possession to murder — or to a reduced charge as part of a plea agreement and surrender their certification.
Concerns about troubled officers finding new jobs in law enforcement have become apparent twice in recent weeks in Perry and Licking counties.
A Perry County Sheriff’s Office detective, who shot a man multiple times during a February arrest and had a history of questionable conduct at previous law enforcement positions in Muskingum County, remains a certified police officer. Kirkersville police Chief James Chapman and Sgt. Derek Abner were fired from previous jobs but remain certified amid residents’ concerns regarding a dramatic increase in enforcement. Springboro Police Chief Jeff Kruithoff, who fired Abner for repeated lies, said there is no process to decertify dishonest police officers or statewide standard for hiring.
Fit to serve?
The mayor of Kirkersville, a small Licking County village just north of Interstate 70, said he never knew Abner and Chapman were fired from their previous jobs.
Abner was fired from the Springboro Police Department on June 6, 2011, after being placed on administrative leave May 27, 2011, for violating department policies, making untruthful statements and having integrity problems, according to Abner’s personnel records from Springboro police.
In a letter firing Abner, Kruithoff wrote: “Your actions to date as a probationary police officer has shown time and time again the inability to tell the unvarnished truth when being questioned.”
Kruithoff said Abner’s unwillingness to tell the truth became evident May 15, 2011, when Abner, while off duty, followed a person he suspected was driving drunk in the city of Franklin.
Abner said the SUV almost struck him, but a Franklin police sergeant saw the opposite, according to Franklin police’s letter to Springboro police.
Kirkersville Mayor Terry Ashcraft and Chapman said they thought Abner was dismissed because of budget concerns. Abner said he was an at-will employee dismissed with little explanation.
Chapman, who hired Abner, was fired from the Mount Sterling Police Department in September 2009 after Columbus police received reports that Chapman had attempted suicide with a gun surrounded by family photos, according to a Mount Sterling Police Department internal investigation.
Chapman said he resigned from Mount Sterling Police Department because of stress and unwillingness to comply with then-Chief Michael McCoy’s riskier drug stings. Chapman said he never saw the internal investigation detailing his dismissal and called it highly inaccurate.
On Sept. 5, 2009, McCoy received a call from Columbus police reporting that Chapman had been transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center after a suicide attempt, according to a Mount Sterling police internal investigation.
“The witness called police to report that (Chapman) had tried to shoot himself and taken a bunch of pills. She then informed that she had taken the gun away from him and put it in another room,” according to a Columbus Division of Police preliminary investigation.
Columbus police officers noted “there were several notes that were typed out in the room saying sorry and not to judge him,” according to the preliminary investigation.
Chapman, who was placed on administrative leave Sept. 6, 2009, told McCoy that “he just took some aspirin and that everyone was blowing it out of proportion,” according to an internal investigation.
McCoy fired Chapman on Sept. 16, 2009, according to the internal investigation.
Most agencies complete background checks and speak with former employers, but if a local agency isn’t diligent, officers with histories of misconduct or criminal behavior could end up patrolling the streets.
“That is a subject of a lot of concern among police chiefs,” Kruithoff said.
People who aspire to be officers who complete training must find a job within one year to avoid retaking classes, and that leaves some searching for volunteer positions. At a rate of $9 or $10 per hour, the salary for the part-time Kirkersville sergeant and chief respectively, might not attract more qualified candidates.
In many cases, the top cops want to work for the larger agencies, and smaller jurisdictions are left with the rest, Newark Police Chief Steven Sarver said.
To even get on the list of potential candidates for a Newark police officer position, a person must successfully complete a physical fitness test, civil service exam and police officer certification, Sarver said. A doctor’s approval and negative answers to a list of disqualifying offenses also are required.
Once on the list, Newark police will speak with candidate’s neighbors and significant other — not to mention the candidate’s employers for the past 10 years. And that’s all before the criminal background checks, polygraph test, psychological examination and medical health exam, Sarver said.
“We literally turn somebody upside down,” he said.
The same standards are not applied to smaller agencies, said Sarver, speaking from experience as Amelia’s former police chief for 14 months.
Sarver recalls convincing the mayor that polygraph tests, which Sarver received at a discounted rate of $100 for six candidates, were worth the expense. The first candidate tested had been stealing from his employer, Sarver said.
“We would have never found that out had we not had the polygraph test,” Sarver said.
Soon after Sarver left, he learned the next chief had hired the thieving candidate.
His successor said, “I’m hurting for people right now. I’m sure it’s just a one-time thing,” Sarver recalled.
Sarver said poor background checks are not unique to the law enforcement field, but they have a detrimental affect on performance and public perception.
“It’s very unfortunate that we’re not making more of an effort,” Sarver said.
State policies vary
The 15 Ohio officers decertified in 2011 all were convicted of criminal offenses, according to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office records.
Among the 50 states, certification and training agencies differ on how they handle revocations. In Indiana, an officer convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors would lose his or her certification, said Janice Hardwick, an administrative assistant with the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.
In West Virginia, every time a police officer changes jobs, whether to move closer to family or to avoid a firing, his or her certification is deactivated, said Chuck Sadler, law enforcement training coordinator for the West Virginia Division of Criminal Justice Services.
A subcommittee reviews the deactivated certifications to determine if the officer resigned while being investigated, resigned to avoid investigation or was fired, Sadler said.
A fired officer could retain certification based on the circumstances and judgment of the subcommittee, Sadler said.
“If an officer is arrested, we do need to know and track it,” Sadler said. “We’re going to look at what the grounds are.”
In Pennsylvania, the Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission can revoke an officer’s certification if he or she fails to maintain CPR certification, qualify with firearms or complete in-service training.
Being convicted of a crime punishable by at least one year of incarceration, whether a felony or more-serious misdemeanor, also could end in a revocation, according to information provided by E. Beverly Young, an administrative officer with the commission.
Under Pennsylvania law, certification would be revoked after notice is provided and a hearing is completed.
In Michigan, an officer can lose his or her certification for being convicted of a felony offense or making a materially false statement on applications, said David Harvey, executive director of the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.
The commission hopes to introduce legislation that would allow it to revoke certification for officers who agree to a misdemeanor conviction to avoid a felony one, Harvey said.
“That’s what happens quite frequently, then another agency hires them,” Harvey said.
About five years ago, the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training launched a National Decertification Index to track officers who lost their certifications, executive director Michael Becar said. Thirty states, including Ohio, provide and review data through the index, he said.
The records, available to state standards and training commissions, do not detail the reasons why officers lost their certifications because guidelines for revocation of certification vary among states, Becar said.
Officials can contact the state that revoked the officer’s license for additional information and make their own determinations, Becar said.
The goal is to prevent bad cops from floating from state to state, Harvey said.
“You don’t want to get somebody else’s problem,” Harvey said.
Jessie Balmert can be reached at (740) 328-8548 or email@example.com.
Officer Daniel (Dan) Ryan aka “Father” Ryan is no stranger to those who know him. He served as media spokesperson for the PAPD during the final tumultuous days of former Police chief Lynne Johnson who resigned in disgrace for ordering her officers including Dan Ryan to stop and question all African Americans wearing a “Doo Rag” prompted by a string of robberies having occurred in Palo Alto back in 2008.
“When my officers see an African American who has a doo-rag on his head, absolutely the officers will be stopping and trying to find out who that person is,” Johnson had told reporters ……
In one of his most provocative and chilling media statements, Ryan fully supported former police Chief Johnson’s actions in stopping African Americans by suggesting that news media had reported the original story incorrectly.
It’s alleged that former police Chief Lynne Johnson instructed Ryan, to release the following media statement to CBS 5 crime watch:
“Police spokesman Dan Ryan defended the chief’s statements Friday, saying they were taken out of context and were truncated to appear in the worst possible light”.
Ryan’s controversial media statement prompted one Palo Alto city council member Pat Burt to see through Ryan’s media spin by questioning his own tone on illegal racial profiling to the press.
“He [Ryan] is still making statements that it’s largely the fault of the listener and the press,” Burt told the Post yesterday. “I requested that … we don’t have the community representative in the department making statements that essentially contradict the city manager and the police chief and contradict the record”.
Ryan is also well known for his supportive role in other officer’s questionable behavior as in the tazing of long time resident Tony Ciampi ruled unconstitutional calling it a ‘training exercise’. We beleive the community should be aware of Ryan’s return to the streets of Palo Alto and his perceived bias of African American’s and Latino’s.
When I asked this PAPD officer if he had ever been arrested he had that quizzical look upon his face. I thought it was an appropriate question given the fact that many notorious “gang” members bare the marking of their trade.
When I questioned him further he said it was for “religious” reasons. Okay, I can except that besides in reality it’s an expression of one’s First Amendment right.
Artistic expression comes to my mind. Well I decided to do a little digging not far, I Googled like the most of us and found that the notorious “El Sereno gang” makes use of a similar marking.
I’m not sure of the appropriateness of displaying Tattoos only because of their gang related links or ties.
There’s something to be said about the proper attire of law enforcement officials given ones place in our community. Does it send the wrong message? Some would argue a resounding no!!
Well consider this. Would we question or say anything if President Obama had the US Constitution tattooed on his chest as he uncovered it all during a national news conference?
I think there’s a time and place for tattoos. But certain tattoos are just too close to gang related activities.
A Nazi lightning bolt on your neck or a swastika on your forehead for some, is a sure giveaway when picking someone out of a police line up.
Well I spotted this officer or gang member right off. And I think for anyone this would have been the logical choice.
I tried to interview Ray Bacchetti – HRC (City of Palo Alto Human Relations Committee) and police volunteer for comment. He stated the following:
I recall years ago I complained about the conduct of a certain officer Dan Ryan to another officer and she responded by saying, well that maybe true, but I can’t speak out against the PAPD “Brotherhood”.
That being said, what do our surrounding policing agency’s have to say on the subject of Tattoos and police officers? Just Google!
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO RONALD L.DAVIS
POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF POLICE 141 Demeter Street (650) 853-3125
East Palo Alto, CA 94303 firstname.lastname@example.org
Police Department to Publish Operating Policies Online
“No Visible Tattoo Policy First on Website”
July 27 – Effective August 1, 2007, the East Palo Alto Police Department will publish its operating policies online for public view and access.
By providing unfettered access to policies that govern officers’ actions, the Department will enhance its professionalism and be more open, accessible and accountable to the community.
“I believe this information will assist the community to better evaluate the Department, understand the legal actions of officers, and identify actions that are not in accordance with established policies”, according to Chief Davis.
The Department will start the program by posting a new policy that prohibits officers from visibly displaying tattoos and body art while in uniform. Future postings include a policy that governs the Department’s acceptance, processing and investigation of citizen complaints, and a policy that prohibits racial profiling and requires data collection for all stops made by officers.
The Department recently had all of its policies reviewed and updated by a legal expert. These policies are under final review by the Chief of Police and will be posted on the website after they have been finalized and published.
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Subject: Tattoos and Body Art Prohibition for Employees Supersedes: Signature of Issuing Authority: Chief Ronald L. Davis Body Art and Tattoo Prohibition for Employees
It is the policy of the East Palo Alto Police Department that all uniformed employees and explorers maintain the highest standards of professional appearance when interacting with the public and representing the Department.
I. CORE VALUES
Maintaining a professional appearance is critically important to fostering public trust and confidence in law enforcement, and to exceeding the standards of the profession.
This order incorporates the Department’s core values of Service, Teamwork, Respect, Integrity, Vision, and Excellence (STRIVE).
II. GENERAL POLICY
A. All uniformed employees and explorers are prohibited from displaying any body art, tattoo(s), intentional scarring, mutilation, or dental ornamentation while on duty or representing the department in any official capacity.
B. Any currently employed uniformed employee and explorer with existing body art, tattoo(s), intentional scarring, or mutilation that is visible shall have the following options:
1. Uniformed employee shall cover existing body art, tattoo(s), intentional scarring, or mutilation by wearing the long-sleeve shirt and/or uniform pants/breeches.
2. Cover the existing body art, tattoo(s), intentional scarring, or mutilation with a skin tone patch or make-up.
3. Have the tattoo(s) or brand(s) removed at the employee’s expense.
C. Body art, tattoo(s), brand(s), intentional scarring, and/or mutilation that is not able to be covered or concealed is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to; foreign
Policy Number: No. of Pages: 2 Effective Date: 1 Aug 07 Date Revised: N/A
objects inserted under the skin, pierced, split or forked tongue, and/or stretched out holes in the ears.
D. Uniformed employees and explorers shall not have any dental ornamentation. The use of gold, platinum, silver, or other veneer caps for the purposes of ornamentation are prohibited. Teeth, whether natural, capped, or veneered, shall not be ornamented with designs, jewels, initials, etc.
By order of Ronald L. Davis
Chief of Police
EAST PALO ALTO / Chief draws plan to destroy gang / FBI among agencies joining fight to stem longtime problem
Davis is also seeking help from state parole officials. He wants restrictions on paroled gang members’ movements in the city, a requirement that paroled members have their gang-related tattoos removed, and mandatory community service for parolees. The question is, should police officers also have there “gang” related tats removed?