Santa Clara County sheriff’s will be equipped with body cameras

All Santa Clara County sheriffs deputies and correctional officers will be outfitted with body worn cameras following a unanimous vote by the board of supervisors.

Supervisor Joe Simitian, who represents Palo Alto and the North County, first proposed the use of the cameras in 2014, after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

“We can watch with anguish what’s happened in other communities around the country, shake our heads, and then move on, “Simitian said this week. “Or, we can accept the responsibility to do something. ”

The idea of getting the body worn cameras by jail officers surfaced following the death of an inmate in 2015, according to a release from Simitian.

The cameras can protect the public from officer misconduct, protect officers against false complaints by the public and help restore trust and confidence in police, Samitian said.

A 16 month long study conducted by Rialto showed a more than 50% reduction in the use of force by police officers wearing cameras, and a nearly 90% drop in citizen complaints of police misconduct.

The board of supervisors voted Tuesday to purchase and deploy body worn cameras, and by the end of this year, an estimated 1,142 officers will be outfitted with them, according to Simitian.

The first shipment of cameras will arrive sometime in early February, and from their officers will need to be trained. The cameras will hit the streets in late February or early March. The county is purchasing the cameras from Taser International Inc., which is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Other agencies

More law enforcement agencies around the country and in the bay area have been deploying body worn cameras. In Palo Alto, police captain. Zach Perron said, the department will be getting its 10 demo cameras from the company WatchGuard, which could happen as early as next week.

Once the department tests fees and determines whether the cameras meet officers need, Perrone said, the department will equip all officers with body worn cameras. “There is no set time frame, “he said of purchasing cameras for all officers. “Could be a couple of months or longer. ”

All Mountain View police officers have been wearing the cameras for more than a year, said police spokesman Katie Nelson.

Ahead of the pack

And Los Altos started even sooner. The city began a pilot program starting in 2009, and now, all 31 sworn officers where cameras, said police chief Andy Galea.

In San Mateo County, the sheriffs office doesn’t yet have a plan for putting cameras on its 550 sworn officers.

But in November, Redwood city Council approved a plan to equip all of the cities 96 sworn police officers with body worn cameras by December 29, 2017, according to city officials.

Redwood City is just one of the departments in San Mateo County getting cameras for police. In May, San Mateo County County civil grand jury released a report recommending that all police agencies within the county come up with plans for officer worn body cameras.


Cameras could make police more accountable and footage could be useful as evidence in court cases, according to the grand jury’s report. San Mateo and Burlingame police are aiming to rule out body cameras by October. Atherton, Belmont, Foster City, Hillsboro and Menlo Park are the five towns and cities in the county that had body worn cameras before the civil grand jury’s report.

For full rendering: Daily Post Article Powered by: Dragon Diction

Police chief backs use of cameras, ShotSpotter

Menlo Park Police Chief Robert Jonsen said last night that he wants to follow a consultant’s recommendation to dramatically increase police camera surveillance throughout the city and equip officers with Tasers.

Among other things, the report recommended that the city install cameras in high-crime areas as well as a “ShotSpotter” system like the one used by the city of East Palo Alto. Such systems are used to pinpoint where gunshots come from and alert police.

The proposal to acquire multiple kinds of new law-enforcement cameras and technology came in a report written by the consulting company Belcher, Ehle, Medina and Associates. The report, presented at last night’s City Council meeting, analyzed the police departments performance and areas for improvement.

License plate readers

The report presented by consultant Steve Bletcher, also recommended an automatic license plate recognition system, which would photograph and document the license plates of cars going in and out of the city.

The report also advocated buying multiple video cameras for police cars. According to Jonsen, body cameras that will be worn by officers have already been ordered. If further recommended installing cameras and audio recorders in the lobby and jail area of the police station.

Alternatives to guns

Bletcher said his group also concluded that Menlo Park should consider arming its officers with Tasers, which he called a useful alternative to guns.

The 2012-2013 budget for the police department is $14.7 million. There are 47 sworn officers and 22.75 civilian employees.

The Daily Post Today

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

Major Victory in the Legal Hangman Game with the City of Palo Alto

Professional Landscaper Tony Ciampi scores a major victory with the city of Palo Alto and city attorney Donald Larkin.

In city attorney Donald Larkin’s last motion he attempted to enforce by threatening and coercing Mr. Ciampi into signing a binding agreement which was not agreed to during their last legal oral arguments which provided Mr. Ciampi with the necessary legal ammunition ultimately leading to Mr. Larkin’s demise.

He hung himself with his own legal rope.

Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1138  (9th Cir. 2002)

Mr. Larkin tried in vain to weasel out of a prior legal agreement by threatening Mr. Ciampi with the following language:

“If you refuse to sign the settlement agreement (which contains only those terms that you agreed to on the record) we will have no choice but to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  If we have to do so, we will seek monetary sanctions to be deducted from the settlement amount.”

This was a victory or case against all odds.  Mr. Ciampi, a man without a legal degree successfully fended off the immense legal fire power and deep financial pockets of the city.  All of these expenses paid for off the backs of Palo Alto city taxpayers’.

All this money wasted by city attorney Donald Larkin could have been avoided early on and may have provide a sizable down payment for a new city park for use by disabled children of Palo Alto and others.

Judge Koh’s ruling was based on Mr. Ciampi’s final motion:

“The Court finds Judge Illston’s opinion persuasive and hereby ORDERS as follows: If seven days after the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff and Defendants are unable to agree to a form of written settlement, then the parties shall sign the transcript of the August 9, 2011 Settlement Conference to indicate their approval of the oral settlement.

Defendants shall issue payment within three days of the parties’ signing a written settlement agreement or the Settlement Conference transcript. The parties shall immediately file their stipulation of dismissal after Plaintiff has received payment.”

Let’s not forget Mr. Larkin has also wasted 3 million in taxpayers’ money prosecuting Palo Alto’s now infamous panhandler Victor Frost.


The Evidence Speaks for Itself

Stamped into evidence

United States Federal Judge Lucy H. Koh will not permit me to present evidence to the jury, the evidence I have provided to her. Judge Koh concluded that NO tampering of evidence occurred.

This is your opportunity to be the judge and decide if the Palo Alto Police Falsified the MAV (Mobil Audio Visual), recorders, the Taser cameras and the taser gun Data Ports. For complete details go to I have included some videos as well

Tony Ciampi














Judge KOH-Tradictions




A Closer Look At – Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons

Department of Justice

About this report.  This study looked at injuries that occur to law enforcement officers and citizens during use-of-force events. Most applications of force are minimal, with officers using their hands, arms or bodies to push or pull against a suspect to gain control.
Officers are also trained to use various other force techniques and weapons to overcome resistance.

These include less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, batons or conducted energy devices (CEDs) such as Tasers. They can also use firearms to defend themselves or others against threats of death or serious bodily injuries. What did the researchers find? This study found that when officers used force, injury rates to citizens ranged from 17 to 64 percent, depending on the agency, while officer injury rates ranged from 10 to 20 percent.

Most injuries involve minor bruises, strains and abrasions. The study’s most significant finding is that, while results were not uniform across all agencies, the use of pepper spray and CEDs can significantly reduce injuries to suspects and the use of CEDs can decrease injuries to officers. The researchers assert that all injuries must be taken seriously.

When police in a democracy use force and injury results, concern about police abuse arises, lawsuits often follow and the reputation of the police is threatened. Injuries also cost money in medical bills for indigent suspects, workers’ compensation claims for injured officers or damages paid out in legal settlements or judgments. What were the study’s limitations? In many cases, agency supplied injury data did not allow for a detailed analysis of the nature or seriousness of the injuries reported.

DOJ Tazer Report May 2011

Taser International Suppressing Evidence?

This is the claim of Tony Ciampi who has taken on the city of Palo Alto and Tazer International head-on over his being arrested and tazed by the Palo Alto police department back in 2008 and later ruled to have been unconstitutional.

Has Mr. Ciampi found the elusive smoking gun TOP city attorney Donald Larkin claims does not exist thus proving his conspiracy theory of a collaborative cover-up?

Mr. Ciampi claims as reported earlier in the Daily Post that ” they basically manipulated the video”.  Mr. Ciampi has been relentless in his pursuit at discovering the truth.

Mr. Larkin on the other hand  has an altogether different view point claiming, “we’ve really bent over backwards to provide everything that he’s entitled to and then some”.

Do we honestly believe that any opposing party is going to voluntarily turn over evidence not requested, as Larkin claims – “Everything he is entitled to and then some”.  Like a smoking gun?

Let’s not forget that Mr. Larkin was hired to protect the police. Like the two PAPD officers arrested and convicted of DUI’s.

He stuck to his legal guns to protect their identity from be revealed where no other city nationally attempted to cover it up.  He did.

Now here’s an interesting twist.  The Independent Police Auditors hired by the city of Palo Alto agreed with Mr. Larkin’s conclusions of non-transparency and the right not to know who the drunks were.

This very same team reports directly to PAPD Chief  Dennis Burns and refuses to independently investigate Mr. Ciampi’s claim of video and audio manipulation.

They claim, it’s not in their contract. So much for thinking out side box.  Are the fox’s Genanco and Miller protecting the city of Palo Alto and Tazer International?

If anyone is going to find out, you can be sure Mr. Ciampi will be hot on the trail which is sure to cause further frustration for Palo Alto’s TOP city attorney Donald Larkin and others.

The guy’s a bloodhound with a legal pit-bull mentality that won’t give up until justice as been served.

His exposing and thought provoking provocative emails have been relentless as well.  In fact, they stretch beyond US borders to locate that proverbial smoking gun and now claims he’s found it domestically.

He’s also looking further to hold all those accountable for hiding the truth as noted in his most recent email dated 2/8/2011 addressed to Jeff Rosen – Santa Clara County District Attorney and Loretta King US Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division reveals.

Mr. Rosen,

Attached is direct evidence of the Palo Alto Police sending Taser International the Taser Cameras that actually recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and sending the Santa Clara County Crime Lab two Taser Cameras that did not record the March 15, 2008 incident.  That is direct evidence of violating PC 132, 134 and 141b.  The culpable individuals from Taser International can be charged with Conspiracy 182 (a)(1)(2)(3)(5).

Loretta King
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mrs. King,

Attached is the direct evidence of Taser International conspiring with the Palo Alto Police Department in order to deprive me of my Constitutional Rights by destroying exculpatory evidence during my criminal case.

Andrew Hinz of Taser International is on record stating that Taser International received the actual Taser Cameras that recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and then replaced them on November 26, 2008 with two new Taser Cameras prior to my trial which is a violation of U.S.C. 241.

The reason why Mr. Kobzanets and the FBI could not validate my allegations is because the Palo Alto Police Department gave them edited videos from cameras that did not record the March 15, 2008 incident.

If the DOJ were to bring down conspiracy charges against the culpable members of Taser International, I’m certain they would hand over the original videos as a plea deal to obtain a lighter sentence.

Additionally, there is good reason to believe that the PAPD has sent Taser International, Andrew Hinz, the Taser guns in order to tamper with the taser gun Data Ports.   See Court Documents, 121 and 122 of C09-02655-San Jose California.

Taser Intenational Protects the Lie Video and Destroys the Truth

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.


Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”


Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

It is a felony in California to fabricate evidence in order to falsely and wrongfully incriminate someone of a crime, PC 132, 134 and 141b

§ 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Joseph (Tony) Ciampi
P.O. Box 1681
Palo Alto, CA 94302

Mr. Ciampi’s smoking gun evidence and alleged claims are referenced below and it should be noted Mr. Ciampi’s emails for assistance for the most part have been ignored.

405K   View Download
583K   View Download
304K   View Download

Capturing The Human Animal Safely

Some have referred to cities and communities as, “It’s a jungle out there,” in reference to a song written by Randy Newman.  In fact, some websites cater to policing agencies with survival equipment.  One such supplier product is called, The “CamelBak Urban Assault Pack, Perfect for the urban jungle.”

Without question it’s a jungle out there, and we can all appreciate the need to keep not only police safe, but the public as well.

Some object to the term, “human animal”  and I have argued this point with KGO radio talk host Ray Taliaferro.  He often refers to Homo sapiens as, “Human Animals.” I argue they are in a species all of their own.

Animals are instinctive like Squirrels.  They gather nuts and place them in a special location later to be used in the wild or in a cage.  It’s a naturally occurring event, like clockwork.

Animals don’t confer on nuclear disarmament.  Some may argue this point as well.  However, humans do display animal like aggressive behavior without question.

Police often times encounter animalistic behavior while policing the street of our urban jungle; in fact some may question the use of this analogy as well.  However, there’s no denying the fact that police have no idea what they may encounter during the course of their shift or while driving and patrolling the streets of the so called asphalt jungle.

We recently witnessed and read in the news of a disabled man in a wheel chair shot by the San Francisco police.  San Francisco police Chief George Gascón argued that if his officers were equipped with Tazers® the outcome would have been much different.

The jury is still out on this one, but Tazers are on the top of the list with the most fatalities of all of the less-than-lethal devices.  By some accounts,  the Taser related death toll now hovers around 530 plus in North America alone.

There should be no question about the need to reexamine alternatives in light of evolving technologies with respect to the use of Tazers.  One such alternative was jointly developed by the US Army and Foster-Miller called WebShot®.  On one of their sales brochures, which is no longer in distribution, WebShot® describes itself as a – *Nonlethal Entanglement Technology System (NETS).

WebShot® NETS* is a less lethal system that gives law enforcement officials an alternative method to catch, subdue and arrest criminals.  Foster-Miller developed this system to combine speed and positive capture effectiveness in a compact, lightweight and standard weapons package.  This device is the only response that can:

• Capture without pain compliance (complement other techniques).

• Restrict movement (both flight and fight).

• Minimize injury and collateral damage.

• Works indoors, outdoors and in all types of weather.

• Fits as a standard weapon or a customized, recyclable launcher.

• Neutralize threatening animals.

WebShot® NETS is an essential tool in the force continuum and contributes to a positive, responsible image in the community policing effort of law enforcement officials. WebShot® NETS is intended for use by Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Animal Control Officers ONLY.

There we go Mr. Taliaferro, capturing the human animal safely.  I guess the whole point in all of this is if you must shoot someone that is obviously going through the stages of a psychiatric meltdown with a knife or potato peeler in his hands, please consider what appears to be a more humane high-tech solution rather than death by electrocution.

See: Spiderman tool will help police cast net on suspects

Tazer Dart vs. Net Capture
Tazer Dart vs. Net Capture
Net Capture vs Tazer Dart Penetrating Orbit Socket
Capture Net Gun
Capture Net Deployment
Intended Suspect Target
Suspect Captured Safely

The Making Of A California State Bar Complaint – Part TWO – The Intake #10-27213

Tit for tat?

I have been told by a reliable source that Mr. Sherman of the Law firm of – Ferguson, Praet and Sherman are planning a retaliatory response / law suit seeking unspecified defamation damages against Mr. Ciampi for filing a  State Bar complaint.

I have left a voice-mail message with Mr. Sherman seeking comment and will update this site with further information as things progress.   For an overview of the general complaint, please review Part One.

And for more information on how to file a complaint against a California attorney – Please visit –