CHP Officer Stole Nude Photos of DUI Suspect from Her Phone

I remember as a kid being told to find a police officer if I was ever in trouble, the idea being that we, as citizens, should be able to trust that law enforcement will protect and serve our best interests. As a child, I had no reason to question my parent’s advice. However, as an adult, I find it increasingly difficult to follow my parents’ words of wisdom.

So what is the latest transgression in, what seems like, an ever-increasing upsurge of law enforcement transgressions?

According to court documents obtained by the Contra Costa Times, a California Highway Patrol officer is alleged to have gone into the phone of a DUI suspect whom he pulled over and sent nude images to himself of the DUI suspect.

Sean Harrinton, a five-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol, and his partner pulled over a woman on August 29th of this year for making an unsafe lane change in Northern California. The woman allegedly failed field sobriety tests and was determined to have a blood alcohol content of 0.29 percent. She was subsequently arrested and taken to the local county jail for booking.  

While at the county jail, Harrington secretly went into the woman’s phone and sent himself images of the woman, both nude and in a bikini.

Although the District Attorney’s office and the CHP declined to comment on the case, the Contra Costa Times has reported that a Contra Costa District Attorney investigator has recommended felony computer theft charges against Harrington.

Harrington has been assigned to desk duties pending the investigation.

"We think it’s a horrendous breach of the public trust," said Rick Madsen, a private Danville attorney representing the woman. "We believe Officer Harrington committed a clandestine and illegal intrusion into her privacy which is unspeakable considering his sworn duty to protect the public. My client remains understandably distraught as we await further information about who else may possess the photos and what further investigation may uncover."

Although Harrington’s search of the phone may not have been for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the woman, the breach of privacy is nonetheless disturbingly illegal.

The United States Supreme Court recently unanimously held in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), that warrantless searches and seizures of digital contents of a cellphones during an arrest are unconstitutional.

“Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’ wrote the Court. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant.”

The woman apparently had given Harrington the password to her phone for the purpose of obtaining a number from the phone. The scope of her consent was to the phone number and only the phone number, nothing more.

According to court records, the woman’s DUI case has since been dismissed as a result of the investigation into Harrington’s actions. And rightly so. If Harrington was willing to violate the woman’s privacy rights, what else was he willing to do to taint the DUI investigation?

This entry was posted on Monday, October 27th, 2014 at 7:48 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

DUI Suspect Forced to Have Penis Catheterized

Just when you thought MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving" had reached the limits of sanity…. 

Man Sues Police Over ‘Forced Catheterization"

Salt Lake City, UT.  May 24 - A 22-year-old college student has filed an $11 million federal lawsuit against police in central Utah, claiming they forced a catheter in him after he refused to consent to a search for marijuana…

“I don’t think it’s right what they did,” Cook told FOX 13 on Thursday. “I’m pretty sure they’re doing it to other people. They made me feel like an animal.”

The former Snow College student said he was smoking cigarettes with friends back in 2008 when police approached their car, parked on a roadside in Ephraim. His lawsuit, filed in February in U.S. District Court, claims police searched the young men and their vehicle. The police claimed they could smell marijuana, but could not find any during a search, Cook claims.

After a K-9 still could not find marijuana, an officer popped the trunk and found a glass pipe inside. Cook claims the officers then asked him to drive his friend’s car to the police station.

“If somebody’s under the influence of marijuana, the last thing you want to do is put them in a car and drive,” said Cook’s attorney, Lindsay Jarvis. “That goes against every statute the state has, and so that’s where it gets a little frustrating and it gets out of control from there.”

Cook said he believed that after driving his friend’s car to the police station, he thought he would be free to go. Instead, he was put in a holding cell and officers demanded he take a drug test.

“I asked for an attorney because I didn’t know if this was right what they were doing,” he said. “Once I did that, they said ‘We’re getting a search warrant so we’re going to have your urine by the end of the night.’ “

Police obtained the warrant, his lawsuit claims, and they drove him to Sanpete Valley Hospital. After being told that a catheter would be inserted into his body to obtain urine, Cook said he said he would consent to giving a sample but became “nervous” and could not urinate.

“The nurse told (an officer) to hold my shoulders, so he held my shoulders and then the nurse undid my pants, wiped me down with iodine and put the tube in me,” Cook told FOX 13. “And then they took me to jail.”

Cook was arrested for marijuana possession and resisting arrest. Jarvis said the resisting arrest charge was for refusing to give a urine sample. She accused police of “bullying” people with forced catheterization.

“This is being used as a punishment to try and get them to comply,” she said. “Rather than employ a simple blood test, they’re forcibly catheterizing these people.”

Forced catheterization is a relatively new issue in the courts. A similar lawsuit was filed by a woman in 2008 against police in neighboring Sevier County. It was dismissed after a federal judge ruled the officers acted without malice and their intent was to “bring her to justice” for the charges she was facing at the time…

“I want them to be accountable for what they did,” Cook said.

If you think this incident in 2008 is an isolated one, you may be surprised to discover that forced catheterization for urine samples is a growing DUI law enforcement technique.  See, for example,  Catheter Forced Up Penis After DUI Arrest (Washington) and DUI Cops Inspired by CIA? (Indiana).  Forced draws of blood with syringes have already become a staple in the "War" – including draws with syringes used by the cops themselves:  Taking Blood by Force, Forced Blood Draws by Cops Spreading and Blood Draws in the Backseat by the Dashboard Light.     

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 7th, 2012 at 9:42 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Disturbed DUI Suspect Spits Blood on Face of Arresting Officer

By guest-writer

A wild DUI arrest occurred this week in Orland when a doctor allegedly bashed his head against the back seat of a police cruiser and spat blood in an officer’s face, according to an alarming report from the Palm Beach Post.

Sources say that video footage from inside a police cruiser capture Zach Bird losing his temper after officers from the Florida Highway Patrol threw him into the back of their car.

Bird, who works as an anesthesiologist in central Florida, reportedly had $40,000 in cash that police officers found after searching him. The police also found “unknown” pills and two handguns in Bird’s car when they conducted their search after his arrest.

In the video recording, Bird can be heard yelling, “[a]ll the officers are stealing my money!” After making this announcement, Bird started kicking and screaming, and eventually began beating his head against the Plexiglas divider in the police cruiser.

After several bashes against the divider, the video shows blood running down Bird’s face as he continued to accuse the police of stealing his money.

The arresting officers, quite naturally, were worried that Bird would injure himself, so they pulled him out of the cruiser and back onto the road.

According to the police report, when Bird was escorted out of the cruiser, “he swallowed, took a deep breath” and “spit blood all over” one of the arresting officer’s faces. Needless to say, this was not a wise decision.

Sources say that, in addition to his DUI charge, Bird now faces an additional charge of resisting arrest with violence, as well as a charge of property damage, due to the damage he inflicted on the glass in the police car.

The price tag on the damage to the car alone may be very steep, as the Florida Highway Patrol had to hire a team of biohazard specialists to clean the interior of the car.

And Bird’s odd behavior did not start after his arrest. According to sources, Bird was initially pulled over by police after he almost ran a state trooper off a local highway. When he was pulled over, Bird immediately failed a sobriety test, which is when police took him into custody.

Interesting, police also found an extra $14,000 in Bird’s car, which was separate from the $40,000 he had in his pockets. It can fairly be said that Bird may have to answer for the gun, cash, and drugs in his car, as well as his behavior after the arrest.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Police Seek Dorchester Burglary Suspect Who’s Phone May Turn Him In - Attorney Sam’s Take

An unnamed gentleman was apparently going about his business in Dorchester Monday. Said business is known as "home invasion".

The break-in was on Beaumont Street and took place on Monday morning while the occupants were out. One was at work and the other...coincidentally enough...was on jury duty

The burglar took an awful lot of stuff, including all the electronics that he could find. This would include a laptop computer, television set and Nintendo Wii game system as well as other goods. The rooms were found, according to police, . “in disarray, draws (sic) opened, closets opened, items ransacked.”

However, the mystery thief apparently left a gift behind.

His blackberry cell phone. It was found on the bathroom floor. Near the broken window.

As a result of the helpful device, a warrant has issued for the arrest of the mysterious gentleman.

A mailman also told investigators that he saw two suspects climb into a white vehicle with “a loud engine” and take off. Another witness told police she saw two men carry a large object down the driveway and put it into what looked like a white hatchback.

While the phone is aiding law enforcement in tracking down one of the alleged suspects, the police may have to rely on eye witness identification to charge the second man.

As an experienced Boston defense attorney, I have handled many cases wherein the government’s case involves either eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. Each type of evidence brings about its own strengths and weaknesses.

The cell phone has apparently already helped the Commonwealth arrive at a chief suspect, namely, the owner of that phone. However, the fact that said phone was left at the scene of the crime and was not there when the occupants left earlier in the morning is not conclusive of the issue of whether the owner was either one of the burglars or even at the scene of the crime. Perhaps the owner had previously been robbed of his cell phone. Perhaps it had been taken by someone who wanted the police to believe that the owner was the culprit.

After all, the leaving of a cell phone is not necessarily the result of carelessness. It could be the result of an evil plan to shed suspicion onto someone else.

And then there are the eyewitnesses. Well, clearly, there will be all kinds of issues to bring about regarding their ability to observe. Further, if they had indeed seen what looked like a robbery, why didn’t they call the police?

In other words, while the leaving behind of the cell phone might bring about a chuckle, it does not spell “game over” for the future defendant(s). Neither do the eyewitnesses even if they identify suspects.

The only question is….with the defense attorney(s) have the experience or talent to make the best out of these, and other, issues?

Well, I guess that will be for whoever is arrested in this case to decide.

Might I suggest , if you someday find yourself in their position, that you opt for a lawyer with talent and expertise? It might be more expensive…in terms of money. However, it might be much cheaper in terms of years in obligatory Commonwealth housing.

If you would like to discuss a criminal case with me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1314030

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Boston Robbery Suspect Gets Robbery Charges Dropped Yet Held On Parole Violation- Attorney Sam’s Take

Well, Gerald M. Hill, 48, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) got good news and bad news yesterday at Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. The good news? The robbery charges against him have been dropped. The bad news? He’s going back to jail, perhaps for life, anyway.

You see, the Defendant was on parole when he was accused of robbing a taxi company at gunpoint in 2009. His prior case, on which he was out on parole, involved the participation in two 1977 killings. I don’t know much about that case, but can tell you that he had not been found guilty of Murder in the First Degree because, if he had been, he would not have been eligible for parole.

The new charges were dismissed yesterday because the evidence against him were suppressed by the court because the court found that critical evidence against him had to be suppressed because of the police’ failure to follow “the rules” of search and seizure. Because the evidence was suppressed, prosecutors said, they no longer had enough of a case to prosecute the Defendant.

Because the evidence could not be used, in other words, there would be no trial against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant, heretofore presumed innocent under the law, could never be found guilty. Therefore, he remains presumed innocent and goes home free....right?

Wrong.

After all, the Defendant did get arrested.

As we have discussed in the past, merely getting arrested is a violation of either probation or parole.

I have been handling matters involving homicides, robberies, probation and parole as a Boston-criminal defense attorney of many years, as you have probably gathered over the years, there are certain issues that really light a fire in my gut.

This is one of them.

It is very easy to get arrested in this day and age, as I have often described to you. You could be at the wrong place and wrong time. You could have angered someone who has the ever-increasing knowledge of how to “work the system” and is trying to get revenge on you. You might also be stuck facing an accusation that everyone knows is extremely unlikely, but, out of fear of tomorrow’s newspapers, are afraid not to take action because of the fear that you might “go out and kill somebody”.

We know, of course, that sometimes innocent people are sent to jail. Many will say that simply cannot be helped. But what about here, when someone has been out on parole (or it could be probation) and they will never have their “day in court” because of how the Commonwealth handled the investigation? Is it right that the accused be sent back to prison anyway because there was, after all, an accusation and the person did, after all get accused in the first place?

The arrest,we all know, is simply an accusation. The suspect is still allegedly presumed innocent.

But, because they were accused in the first place, that presumed innocent person goes back behind bars to either wait to have a day in court or, here, where said day will never come, simply be locked back up by the Commonwealth. Yes, that would be the same Commonwealth who screwed up the investigation in the first place.

Makes you feel real confident that we give much credence to that old document they call the Constitution, doesn’t it?

Of course, many of you will disagree with me. You will argue, “Well, it’s more complicated than that!”

It shouldn’t be.

“We all knowthe guy is a bad guy…!”

In that case, why was he even brought to court? Why have a trial, much less evidentiary hearings?

In short, let’s cut the hypocrisy. Is he an already established “bad buy” so that we do not have to waste court’s time with him and we can just lock him away or shoot him because he was, after all, arrested…..or do we really care about a presumption of innocence?

Well, you decide what you want. I will wager this, though. If it were you or a loved one who were accused, you would likely care about that presumption of innocence stuff.

Why don’t you give me a call when that happens…particularly if you want a free initial consultation. I can be reached at t 617-492-3000.

In the meantime, be careful of the snow and have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

(if not, you might get arrested.)

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/21/convicted_killer_gets_2009_taxi_robbery_charges_dropped/?p1=Local_Links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Mattapan Suspect Arraigned In Boston Superior Court For Home Invasion And Drugs But Not Murder- Attorney Sam’s Take

It may take awhile for felony prosecutions to come, but, usually, when the police painstakingly take their time in their investigation, suspects emerge. This is being played out in Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court. Kimani Washington, 35 (hereinafter the “Defendant”), has been arrested in connection with the quadruple homicide in Mattapan in September. He was charged with various charges, including armed robbery, armed carjacking, trafficking cocaine, and being an armed career criminal.

He has pleaded “Not Guilty” and was ordered held on $500,000 cash bail after arraignment in Suffolk Superior Court.

Interestingly, the Defendant was not charged in the actual murders, although the prosecutors allege that he was a mastermind behind the armed home invasion that precipitated the deadly shootings.

Apparently, during the investigation into the murders, police found over 28 grams of crack cocaine allegedly taken during the robbery, as well as two guns. They say that these were found in a location where the Defendant often stayed. The Commonwealth also claims that one of these firearms were fired during the multiple homicide.

The Defendant is not the only one charged in the case. Another man has been actually charged with the murders and are expected in Suffolk Superior Court shortly. Further, another gentleman was arraigned previously arraigned on murder charges and held without bail.

Prosecutors allege that the Defendant and one of his alleged co-perpetrators knew each other from mandatory visits to prison, and that they hatched a plan to rob the location of the homicides of drugs and cash. On the morning of September 28th, the burglary was carried out according to authorities.

The Commonwealth further claims that the Defendant left the house after the robbery, which is when the executions were carried out. Later in the morning, the three men met again to divide the proceeds from the robbery.

I have handled several gun and murder cases over the past 25+ years as attorney in the criminal justice trenches. While there are nuances in every case, fact scenarios generally fall into a few common patterns. This does not mean, however, that the Commonwealth treats them all the same.

In many cases, the Commonwealth would be charging the Defendant with Murder In The First Degree along with his alleged cohorts.

“How, Sam? He left before the shooting ever took place according to the allegations.”

First of all, we do not know how the Commonwealth came to that conclusion. I will come back to why that may be important in a moment.

Understand that, whenever possible, the Commonwealth charges people they believe are acting together as being a conspiracy or, at least, a joint venture. Under either of these theories, each person is responsible for what the other(s) do during the course of whatever was planned.

Even if something foreseeable, if not planned, took place. For example, two guys rob a store and, as leaving, one of them turns and shoots the store owner. The shooting was foreseeable, so both would normally be charged. The applicable law does allow for someone to withdraw from a conspiracy or joint venture, but it requires a good amount of announcements by the “withdrawer” to qualify.

Further, there is apparently evidence that the group met up again after the killing. It would seem, therefore, that the joint enterprise was still in existence at that time.

I find it interesting that this Defendant is being arraigned all on his lonesome and is not charged with the killing. Also, unless there was a video camera going at the scene of the crime, how does the prosecution know who planned what when and who left when? The victims, of course, are dead. Math is not my strong point, but it seems to me that this just leaves the Defendant and company who would be able to tell the Commonwealth these things.

Could it be that the Defendant is now a Commonwealth witness in exchange for not being charged with murder? Obviously, I don’t know. I will tell you, though, that, as a trial attorney, particularly one in criminal practice, I have developed a well-toned a strong case of “professional paranoia”.

It helps. A lot.

Might I suggest that if you find yourself suddenly facing down the barrel of a criminal charge, you look for an experienced criminal defense attorney with that occupational disease? If you want to contact me to discuss such a situation, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/man_held_on_hig.html

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Florida DUI Suspect Punches Deputy, Slips Out of Handcuffs and Pants

In Bayou George, Florida, a woman pulled over for suspected DUI has been arrested on additional charges, after she slipped out of police handcuffs as well as her clothes and allegedly assaulted a deputy following a car crash.

Samantha Wilson, a 22-year-old woman, was put in custody after she crashed her car at 4 p.m. on a Sunday. She was arrested when police suspected her of drunk driving, and that is when the real excitement began.
According to the NWF Daily News, notes from drunk driving police say that Wilson, whose hands were handcuffed in front of her, quickly slipped out of them the first time. Police re-handcuffed her, and put her in the front seat of a police cruiser.

But while highway patrol trooper Ken McNabb was putting her seatbelt on, Wilson, having once again freed herself from the handcuffs, punched him in the head.

McNabb was able to get the door of the cruiser closed, but Wilson escaped from her handcuffs again, and let herself out of the car. It was about then that she dropped her trousers and began to relieve herself next to the police vehicle. Her husband arrived soon after, pleading with her to stop urinating and pull her pants back up.

Wilson was restrained again and put back into a patrol car. On the way to the police station, according to McNabb, Wilson yelled and screamed, asking to see her husband while kicking at the windows behind the officer’s driver’s seat.

She then proceeded to remove her shoes and pants so that she was naked from the waist down. “She stated that she was going to urinate on my seats before launching into a shouting tirade,” said Deputy Randolph Grob.

Then Wilson, already on her way to jail on suspicion of DUI in Florida, began to slam the plexiglass divider with her handcuffs. She had taken them off again and put them on her fist as though they were a pair of brass knuckles.

The officer stopped the car because he thought Wilson would break through the glass, and when he opened the door to the back seat, she punched him in the nose again. He didn’t remove her from the car because he thought he might hurt her, so instead he was able to force the door closed and radio ahead to the police station to have a female officer ready for her arrival.

Once at the jail, officers had to forcibly remove her from the car amidst her continued punching.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...