The Good, The Bad, The Ugly on PAPD Lt. Sandra Brown’s Retirement

Palo Alto Police Lt. Sandra Brown,

I feel compelled to say something for it may be the last time I will ever get the opportunity to given your retirement.

I guess I’ll just say that the real trial will begin in no more than 50 years from now.

You may think you got away with it, but the day will come when all of your family and friends will know the truth and your facade will be ripped away and you will be exposed for what you really are, “for there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.”

Your estimation and value of me is not much different than some southern slave owner from the 19th century south.  Its that hatred within you which allows you to harm other people who have not harmed you or anyone else.

That’s why America enacted the 13th, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Freedoms and rights you don’t believe in for others, but only for yourself and your family.

For Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act” because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. 

While the existing law protected all citizens in theory, its protection in practice was unavailable to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so.  The Act was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of federal law, and has subsequently been interpreted to create a species of tort liability.

The catalyst for the enactment of the Act was the “campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights.”  Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985).  The following quote from Representative Lowe of the 42nd Congress is illustrative:

While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings(electrocutions), and lynchings and banishing have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrators have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. 

Combinations, darker than the night that hides them, conspiracies, wicked as the worst of felons could devise, have gone unwhipped of justice.  Immunity is given to crime and the records of public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress

http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

I remember you once told me that you would arrest anybody who violates the law regardless of who they are, but just not your fellow officers.

I know you know, and that you know that I know you know what you and your own have done.  You’re a con artist supreme and a coward to boot, who stabbed me in the back and lied about it to protect your own whom you take care of just like the drunk cop who totaled his vehicle.

How do you know when the suspect is lying, she keeps changing her story: “this taser camera was sent to Taser International for repair.”  Lt. Sandra Brown June 30, 2011 Judge Lucy Koh’s Chambers/Attorney Steven Sherman’s Sanction Hearing.

One problem Sandra, Andrew Hinz stated in a Declaration and documented in an invoice slip that that Taser Camera had never been sent back to Taser International at any time.

Gotcha.

You lose Sandra, you lost your integrity and you will never get it back unless you come forward with the truth.

You may think that you won’t have to lie about your lies and your fellow officers’ lies again, but “Truth” has an indomitable persistence to rise to the surface when you least expect it.

Retirement Resolution for Sandra Brown

  3 comments for “The Good, The Bad, The Ugly on PAPD Lt. Sandra Brown’s Retirement

  1. Aram James
    December 12, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Mr. Ciampi:

    Your piece re Sandra Brown–dated Dec 12, 2011–is extraordinarily compelling. I have posted-below–a piece I wrote on Lt. Sandra Brown back on February 24, 2010.

    From the archives: Has Lt. Sandra Brown misled the people of Palo Alto? You be the judge!

    2/24/2010

    Hi Mark, ( PaloAltoFreePress):

    Why would any police department be proud of a DUI convicted officer? And why would that same department allow someone like Lt. Sandra Brown to—(apparently acting in the capacity as the department’s spokesperson-spin-mister) –try to get over on the public by stretching credibility to the breaking point?

    As I will argue below: Lt. Brown’s suggestion that when an officer of the PAPD is arrested or convicted of a DUI —that they should be held to a different standard then the rest of us, by being allowed to keep information re their arrest private, is simply untenable on its face.

    The truth is, once arrested, any of us, cop, or non-cop– the information and fact of the arrest becomes public record under the California Public Records Act. See: California Government Code & 6254 (f) (1).

    Law enforcement agencies must make available to the public the following information about individuals the agency has arrested. In addition to other information mandated to be released– pursuant to the public records act– the following must be released:

    The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency.

    As such –this officer’s name (the convicted PAPD officer) has no doubt already been published (made public) in the local police blotter and or newspaper –in the town and county where he/she was arrested.

    By failing to provide this information the PAPD is simply engaged in a delay tactic–hoping that the press, and or some other entity— is simply unwilling or unable to track down the information that has already been made public.

    In other words, the PAPD is playing cat and mouse with the public trust–hoping that the controversy will simple go away–without anyone tracking down the information that has in fact already been made public.

    In the Daily Post of February 16, 2010, in an article titled, When a cop gets a DUI, Lt. Sandra Brown made the false and misleading claim that for the PAPD to release the name of the officer would be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. In fact she is quoted in the piece as follows:

    “We all have our right to privacy, we are all human and we all make mistakes, no matter who writes our paycheck,” said Brown.

    Lt. Sandra Brown knows this is not the truth. When a member of the PAPD makes an arrest such information becomes public, by way of the department’s police log (police blotter). The information is subsequently reported in the press.

    Lt. Brown’s comments, suggest, misleadingly, that somehow police officers are above the law and are entitled to more privacy then other individuals arrested. The truth is quite different –police are entitled to the same level of privacy as any other individual arrested, no more and no less.

    Lt. Sandra Brown, yet again, attempts to turn both common sense and the truth on its head with the following comments— attributed to her in the same post article:

    Palo Alto Police would not have to attend mandatory alcohol counseling for a drunken driving conviction, and an officer who had been convicted of drunken driving would still be allowed to make drunken driving arrests, as a matter of public safety, said Brown.

    (Note: in the same article— comments attributed to Lt. Sandra Brown suggest that the DUI convicted officer would not be subject to random checks for alcohol).

    So think about the implications of the above comments: we are led to believe by Lt. Brown that it is a matter of public safety that a convicted DUI officer should still be allowed to make drunk driving arrests, while at the same time not being subjected to random drinking tests himself ,or mandatory DUI classes for his conviction.

    Does this absurd suggestion/proposition by Lt. Brown make you feel safer?

    Common sense suggests that absent disclosure of the officer’s name, absent a clean bill of health re this officer having completed mandatory DUI classes, and absent random testing to ensure that the officer is not drinking on the job—it is the officer and the department— that allows him to continue on the job under these conditions– that constitutes the public safety threat—not the other way around.

    Lt. Sandra Brown’s suggestion that not allowing this officer to conduct DUI arrests— until he has been subject to all of the above programs and testing –would some how implicate public safety is disingenuous at best—and ,more simply, a blatant attempt to deceive the public Lt. Brown has sworn to serve and protect.

    One final bit of irony—this is the same Lt. Sandra Brown who now apparently supervises internal affairs, and oversees citizen complaints filed against fellow members of the PAPD.

    Given Lt. Brown’s obvious contempt for both the public trust and the truth –it does not inspire a sense of confidence that citizen complaints will be taken seriously by this department.

    Its time that the PAPD release the name of the convicted DUI officer, now!

    Justice, fair play and public safety demand such a result.

       1 likes

    • Mark Petersen-Perez
      December 12, 2011 at 10:38 am

      Reading the following commentary on Sandra Brown written by reporter Dave Price in the Daily Post today leads me to believe he’s always been in bed with the cops!!

      One of Palo Alto’s Finest:

      Lt. Sandra Brown is retiring from the Palo Alto police Department after 29 years in law enforcement and will receive a proclamation from the city Council tonight. Three words come to mind when I think of Sandra Brown: honest, smart and tenacious.

      The first story I covered involving Sandra Brown was back in 1996 when she was on bike patrol and chased another bicyclist several blocks after he ran a red light on University Avenue. It was the first time I had ever heard of a high-speed bike chase, but it showed her tenaciousness.

      That same attitude was evident last fall when the city was reeling from a series of armed street robberies. One by one, the cops, led by Lt. Sandra Brown, caught the bad guys and the sense of fear that gripped the community went away.

      As a reporter, I found Brown to be honest and professional. And she returned phone calls, even on her days off. That is indicative of her attitude about doing a very thorough job in whatever area she was assigned to work.

      Herein are her comments memorialized and caught on tape concerning Palo Alto Free Press as a reporting news agency to which Dave Price has never addressed and as a news reporter was aware of but choose to remain under the covers with Ms. Brown.

      “Hi Mark, it’s Sandra Brown, Palo Alto Police. It is about 3:58. I wanted to talk to you about this press issue. I know we talked a couple of weeks ago about putting you on our mailing list for emails.

      I have since done some research on your Free Press, Palo Alto Free Press, and myself and the City Attorney’s Office have determined that we are not going to recognize you as a newspaper. If all you want are the press releases, you can get those from the website, City of Palo Alto website.

      So, you’re not getting black-listed per se, but you can’t call the individual PIO’s and get information on individual cases, and they will not take interviews from you. If you want to get information on individual cases, then you will have to go through the Public Records Act like every other citizen.

      Now, I’m getting ready to leave, but I will be back in tomorrow morning about 7:30, about 8:00 I am free. If you want to call me back at my desk, 329-2394, we can discuss this further.

      But at this point, and at this time, the City will not recognize you as print media or as a newspaper. They are considering you a blog. If I open up emailing the press releases to you, I’m going to have to open it up and email to everybody, and we are just not in the position to do that. So, give me a call tomorrow so we can talk about it.

      Please don’t call Agent Philip (sp?), he’s a detective. Although he is a PIO, he’s been instructed by me not to answer your phone calls. So, anything in reference to — any questions in reference to this, please just deal with me, even if we have to sit down and talk and meet with the City Attorney, that’s where we are.

      I will tell you that the information will be provided, but you have to go out of your way to get it just a little bit, okay.

      Again, it’s about 4:00. I will talk with you in the morning. I actually don’t work today, but I’m going to get out of here. Thanks. Bye.”

      Where’s a reporter [cop] when you need one?

         0 likes

  2. Tony Ciampi
    December 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Hey Dave,

    I read your remarks about Lt. Sandra Brown in today’s paper. I got to know Sandra quit well, speaking with her several times a week over the course of three years back in the early to mid nineties. As a result, I too once held Sandra in high regard, but that all changed when she went along with the cover-up in using falsified videos to incriminate me of a crime.

    Sometime during the first week of June 2008 Sandra informed Palo Alto City Council Member Pat Burt that, “something was wrong with my case, but we’re still investigating.”

    But nothing so wrong that she wouldn’t attempt stopping her fellow officer from trying to incriminate me with a crime using falsified videos.

    February 9, 2010 the City stated that Burger used Taser Camera V06-015542.
    On July 12, 2010 Chief Burns stated that Taser Camera V06-015542 does not exist.
    On July 12, 2010 Chief Burns stated that Burger used Taser Camera V07-065373.
    On July 12, 2010 Chief Burns stated that the Santa Clara County Crime Lab received Taser Camera V07-065373.
    The Santa Clara County Crime Lab stated that it received Taser Camera V06-015542.
    On September 3, 2010 Chief Burns changed his initial response and stated that Burger used Taser Camera V06-015542 and that he does not know where Taser Camera V07-065373 is at.
    The January 2008 Taser Download Report states that Burger was issued and using Taser Camera V07-0653737.
    Andrew Hinz of Taser International stated in a Declaration to the Court that Taser Camera V07-065373 was first sent to the Palo Alto Police Department on November 26, 2008 and was never sent back to Taser International for any reason.
    On June 30, 2011, Lt. Sandra Brown stated in Court that Taser Camera V07-065373 was sent to Taser International for repair.
    Andrew Hinz stated in his official report regarding the Taser gun and Taser Camera evidence that Taser Cameras V06-015020 and V06-015525 were the cameras used to record the March 15, 2008 incident.
    The PAPD stated that Temores used Taser Camera V06-015530.
    Andrew Hinz stated in his official report and Declaration to the Court that Taser Cameras V06-015020 and V06-015525 were sent to Taser International for repair but could not fixed and therefore they were destroyed.
    According to Officer Burger’s initial Weapon Summary Report, Burger was in possession of Taser Camera V06-015020 in September of 2007.

    On October 19, 2010 during the first inspection in which I was supposed to view the original videos that were downloaded onto the Department’s hard-drive, Lt. Sandra Brown informed me that the original hard-drive which Chief Burns had placed under lock and key on August 29, 2008 had been removed from evidence was being used in “traffic” where the information was being over-written hundreds and thousands of times.

    It never ceases to amaze me how people minimize and dismiss the harm caused by their friends and acquaintances whom they respect when the harm was done to someone else, especially someone whom they look down upon, yet if the very same harm were done to themselves they would cry foul as loud as they can.

    “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” Abraham Lincoln

    Tony

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*