An article in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-testimony26-2009jul26,0,7875892.story) about a Culver City Probationary Police Officer giving false testimony in a local court case is very disturbing to me.
Most disturbing is the way the Culver City Police Administration has thrown this young officer’s career to the wolves.
The only reason this is being called a simple mistake is to protect the Police Dept. and others who may have been involved in this arrest.
None of this will help the young officer’s career. Only an investigation that determines the truth will help.
It’s difficult to determine the truth from a newspaper article.
But let’s look at what’s there.
The Public Defender stated that the officer gave false testimony about the license status of Mr. Bishop and that the key to the motel room was found in Mr. Bishop’s pocket.
The Public Defender said that the motel clerk testified that officers obtained the motel room key from the clerk, not from Mr. Bishop’s pocket.
Is This Defensible?
The Police Dept. characterized the misunderstanding of police radio traffic by a rookie Police Officer as an honest mistake.
But how do you defend the statement in the report that the officer found the motel room key in Mr. Bishop’s pocket, and there is testimony that the motel clerk gave it to the officers?
No comment from prosecutors or the Police Administration on this issue?
What is the truth?
The rookie Police Officer was not on this traffic stop by himself.
There is a good chance his partner was a more experienced officer.
If they are going to search a suspect and a motel room, there is a good chance that a police supervisor and other officers were on scene.
The police supervisor and the more experienced officers on scene were probably assisting and directing this rookie officer in his investigation.
Checking the Command Chain
The police supervisor would be there to review the facts and approve the search of the motel room and the arrest.
At the Police Station, the watch commander would review the facts and approve the arrest. The officer would then complete his report and it would be approved by a supervisor.
Next, the case would go to a Culver City police detective who would conduct further investigation and file the case with the District Attorney’s Office.
Imagine, all of these experienced people involved — and no one caught the rookie’s mistake.
I think Capt. Dave Tankenson should schedule a bigger room at the Vets Auditorium for the number of people who need additional training on this one.
Head Deputy District Attorney John Lynch raises the best point in this whole article.
Supreme Court Ruling
He said that Mr. Bishop was on parole, justifying the motel room search as to whether Bishop’s license was valid.
In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held (Donald Curtis Samson v. California) that a person on parole in California is subject to search and seizure by police officers at anytime of the day or night, with or without a search warrant, with or without cause.
Mr. Lynch is right because Mr. Bishop was on parole.
No need for the burnt out headlight. License or no license, these issues were irrelevant.
The main issue was, when did the police know Mr. Bishop was on parole, before they went into the room or after he was arrested.
All issues related to Mr. Bishop’s parole status and when the police became aware of his parole status, should be in the police report.
Where is the investigation by the Culver City Police Dept.?
What if this rookie police officer is lying?
You can be sure he did not learn that in the Police Academy. He learned it from his peers at the Police Dept.
What if it was only an irrelevant mistake?
What has the command staff of the Culver City Police Dept. done to this officer’s career?
You can rest assured that the Public Defender’s Office already has placed this officer’s name in its data base that tracks police officers who give false testimony. Next time this officer appears in court on a case before the public defender, the questioning will go something like this.
“Officer, isn’t true that in a 2009 case you gave false testimony leading to the dismissal of the defendant in that case.”
“No, that’s not true. I made a mistake in that case. I did not give false testimony.”
“So officer, in your testimony today in this case, are you lying? Or is it possible that you are once again mistaken.”
A new judge or jury will then have to decide what is the truth on the case.
No help from the Culver City Police Dept. on this one.
Capt. Tankenson’s statement to the Los Angeles Times sounds a lot like the statements an old Police Chief I used to work for used to make.
After an incident like this, we would be summoned to his office.
He would start the conversation with “This is the way I see it”
(These words meant “this is our official response to the public.”)
Police officers mis-hear police radio traffic all the time.
There is no intent, no fabrication, just a mistake.
Contrary to the Superior Court judge’s ruling, we absolutely believe this was a valid arrest.
It always has amazed me how wrongdoing is discovered, with or without an investigation.
The answer was always the same:
No intent, no fabrication, just a mistake.
Mr. Smith, a retired Culver City police officer, may be contacted at scsinvest@sbcglobal.net
