WV Civil Rights Lawyer

Police Misconduct, Civil Rights Law

Another civil rights case settled….

This was actually a few weeks back and was posted on our Facebook.  For posterity, I’ll post here as well….

image1.jpg

This is my client, Robert McPherson. Today we reached a settlement in our lawsuit against the City of Hinton, WV and former police chief, Derek Snavely.

This case was on the front page of the Charleston Gazette-Mail a month or so back, which published a full copy of the federal lawsuit:

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/…/article_13d20637-f1d0-5c6e-…

“John Bryan, a Union-based attorney representing Robert McPherson, a man who filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of West Virginia against Snavely and the city of Hinton alleging excessive force by Snavely, said he wasn’t surprised to hear about the former police chief’s troubles of three weeks ago. Bryan said he had heard several people voicing concern about Snavely for a while.

“This is kind of a problem West Virginia has — if someone leaves a position, even if they should [leave] for a good reason, it’s cheaper to hire them on somewhere else instead of hiring someone who doesn’t have that certification,” Bryan said. “Unless that certification is gone, they are probably going to be picked up somewhere else.”

In his lawsuit, McPherson alleges that, in January 2016, Snavely punched him in the face — unprovoked — before proceeding to “violently beat” him outside a Kroger store.”

More about the lawsuit, and Snavely, here, on my blog:

https://wvcriminaldefenseattorney.wordpress.com/…/mcpherso…/

The terms provide for an award of $75,000.00 to Mr. McPherson. It’s always easier to make a client happy when you get to give him money, instead of the other way around.
😄 I’m glad it all worked out in the end.

Update: Charleston Gazette-Mail article: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/…/article_304c067d-079f-5ae8-…

October 23, 2018 Posted by | Excessive Force, Governmental Liability, John H. Bryan, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Media Coverage, Police, Police Misconduct, Searches and Seizures | Leave a comment

West Virginia State Police and asset forfeiture in the news this weekend. The ugly truth.

The Charleston Gazette-Mail had an article this weekend on a New Jersey couple who were pulled over by a West Virginia State Trooper on their way to a casino.  They had $10,000.00 with them.  The state trooper took all but $2.00 and sent them on their way.  He also took their cell phone (presumably to search it for evidence of a crime, such as drug dealing).

This highlights what is perhaps the ugliest, most unconstitutional, most nazi-ish, thuggish, and un-American behavior engaged-in by the government at the present time: asset forfeiture.  This is the way it works.  You get pulled over for a traffic offense.  You have cash on you, or in the vehicle.  The officer seizes the cash, because they consider the cash itself to constitute evidence of being a drug dealer.  They don’t have to charge you criminally whatsoever.  They then serve you with a notice that, if you want to redeem your cash, you have to contact the court and the prosecuting attorney, and formally claim the cash.  In so doing, the process implies that have to explain to the court, and the prosecutor, where you obtained the money, etc.  The theory is, that drug dealers are not going to claim the money.  The the law enforcement agency gets to keep it, and the prosecutor’s office gets 10%.  Talk about a conflict of interest . . . .

In reality, the law provides that in order to keep the currency which was seized from the citizens, the State, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 60A-7-703(a)(6) (1988), is required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial connection between the property seized and an illegal drug transaction.  This finding is in addition to the initial finding of probable cause that an illegal act under the drug law has occurred. See Syllabus Point 4 of State v. Forty-Three Thousand Dollars, No. 31224 (W. Va. 11/26/2003) (W. Va. 2003).

Only after the State has filed a civil forfeiture petition, and met its’ burden of proof by a preponderance is the citizen required to prove how he/she/they came into ownership of the currency. Id. at 6.

In the case of the couple in the Gazette article, Dimities Patlias and  Tonya Smith, they got nowhere until they contacted the media.  The reporter, Jake Zuckerman, started making some phone calls, including to the prosecuting attorney, and voila, their money was returned in full.  Now the couple is rightly pissed off, and much of the public is learning about this un-American scheme for the first time.

The Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County, who returned the money is a good guy.  Kudos to him for doing the right thing after looking into it.  I actually had an asset forfeiture case with him previously, and he returned the money in that case as well.  I also represented some of his family members in a real estate related jury trial, which we won, thankfully.  This is a problem in a national scale.  This occurs everywhere, and is practiced by the federal government as well.

August 27, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Media Coverage, Police, Police Misconduct, Searches and Seizures, Vehicular Crimes | Leave a comment

U.S. Supreme Court Case on Cell Phone GPS Data

Today the SCOTUS released a decision pertaining to cell phone GPS data obtained without a warrant.  I wish this case existed back when I was litigating the constitutionality of warrantless GPS trackers on police vehicles, which ultimately was decided against us.

Given the unique nature of cell phone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user’s claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology as inJones or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI. The location information ob- tained from Carpenter’s wireless carriers was the product of a search.

The opinion describes the nature of what makes such a “search” a violation, and unreasonable:

As with GPS information, the time- stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, reli- gious, and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’ ” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 28) (quoting Boyd, 116 U. S., at 630). And like GPS monitoring, cell phone tracking is remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools. With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.

This essentially mirrors the arguments we made in the Asbury vs. Ritchie County case.

In fact, historical cell-site records present even greater privacy concerns than the GPS monitoring of a vehicle we considered in Jones. Unlike the bugged container inKnotts or the car in Jones, a cell phone—almost a “feature of human anatomy,” Riley, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9)—tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner. While individuals regularly leave their vehicles, they compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time. A cell phone faithfully follows its owner beyond public thor- oughfares and into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (noting that “nearly three-quarters of smart phone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with 12% admit- ting that they even use their phones in the shower”); contrast Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 590 (1974) (plurality opinion) (“A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.”). Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.

Justice Alito dissents and argues that such information should be available without a warrant. I am at a loss to understand how a justice alleged to be a strict constitutionalist sides with the government in a dispute about whether a warrant should be obtained?  Shouldn’t someone who respects the original intent of the constitution always side with a warrant over a warrantless search?  After all, warrants are a piece of cake for law enforcement to obtain.  But at the very least, they have to create a paper trail.

 

June 22, 2018 Posted by | Searches and Seizures, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Search and Seizure Case From Berkeley County In The News

Last week we filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of John W. Orem and his wife.  The Complaint alleges three civil rights violations: an illegal search, an illegal arrest, and an illegal violation of the right to privacy.

Former Berkeley County sheriff candidate sues state police

Former Berkeley Co. sheriff candidate sues police over drug arrest

Former Berkeley County Sheriff candidate files civil lawsuit against police

In the lawsuit, John Orem and his wife, Sher Orem, claim Trooper Matthew D. Gillmore, on Aug. 2, 2016, conducted an unreasonable search and seizure at their home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The civil suit requests the court to award damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at a trial by jury for past, present and future medical expenses; past, present and future pain and suffering; loss of enjoyment of life; psychological and emotional distress; reasonable attorney fees and costs, as well as other compensatory and punitive damages.

John Orem told The Journal Tuesday that he did not want this to go this way.

“I made a complaint with (West Virginia State Police) and tried to get them to handle the issue within their department,” Orem said in an emailed statement. “Then after a year and never sending anyone out to look into the issue or speak to anyone, they said they see nothing wrong.

“So although all officers are human and make mistakes, I believe that we need to trust our law enforcement to self-police and correct errors. If they can’t do that, they force us to sue. Since the (West Virginia State Police) have immunity to civil suits, this is the only way to have them correct issues and help them to provide a better service to our community.”

Copy of the Complaint

This is the photo which was uploaded to social media, while Mr. Orem was still sitting handcuffed inside the Martinsburg state police detachment.  We allege this was taken and uploaded by employees of the West Virginia State Police in order to destroy Mr. Orem’s reputation and political campaign.

IMG_5936 (002)

The strategy worked well.  The arrest quickly made national headlines.

A few examples:

Sheriff’s candidate in West Virginia charged in heroin case – CBS News

Candidate For Sheriff In West Virginia Charged With Heroin Possession Authorities said they found John Orem unresponsive in his home. – Huffington Post

Mr. Orem was kept sitting on the bench for several hours prior to his arraignment – even though a magistrate was available to arraign him.  The Complaint alleges the delay was due to the fact that the State Police contacted the media, in order to be sure they were waiting with cameras to catch Mr. Orem being perp-walked into the courthouse, with the arresting officer proudly displaying his catch.  Here is a photo of the next morning’s newspaper:

57a0ccb5211b6-image

After both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys agreed that the arresting officer had performed an illegal search, and asked the court to dismiss the charge against Mr. Orem, this arresting officer wrote a letter to the court objecting to the dismissal.  The court ignored the letter and dismissed the charge.

April 11, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liability, Elections, Governmental Liability, Lawsuits, Media Coverage, Police, Police Misconduct, Prosecutors, Searches and Seizures, State Agencies | Leave a comment

So you want to sue the police, Part II

Back in 2010, I wrote a post entitled, So you want to sue the police . . . . , and it has had an overwhelming number of reads.  Well, it’s been 8 years since then, and I’ve learned a lot  I’ve tried cases since then.  Appealed cases.  Settled cases.  Won cases.  Lost cases.  I’ve reviewed probably thousands of allegations.  Since this appears to continue to be a popular topic, here is part II.

  •  Have documentation.  When people call our office about allegations of police misconduct, and/or civil rights violations, we first ask them if they have any documentation.  Here is what we need:
    • Police Report.  This could be what is referred to in West Virginia as a “Criminal Complaint.”  Or, it could be any other official report containing a narrative, or version of the events, written by a police officer.
    • Medical Records.  If the complaint is that injuries were caused by the police, we would like to see documentation of those injuries.  Was there a hospital visit, or doctor’s office visit pertaining to the injuries?  If so, you are entitled to the records, and we will need to review them.
    • Photographs.  Again, if the complaint is that injuries were caused by the police, we would like to see photographs of the injuries.
    • Video Footage.  It goes without saying that if video footage exists of the incident, we want to see it.  It may be the case that footage exists, but the police are in possession of the video.  In West Virginia, and most states, there is a right on behalf of private citizens to request that footage.  This is called a Freedom of Information Act Request, or FOIA request.   If criminal charges were filed, a defendant is going to have a right to receive a copy of the footage.
  • Don’t Wait.  In West Virginia, you generally have 2 years to file a lawsuit based on a civil rights violation.  Other states may have different statutes of limitations periods, even though they are all the same type of claim under federal law.  In some cases it could be less.  Don’t wait 2 years and then call us the day before the statute of limitations expires.  We will not take the case.  Yes, people do this.
    • Witnesses.  Witness recollection of incidents gets worse over time.  Witnesses may die and their testimony may be lost forever.
    • Evidence.  Some evidence disappears with time.  911 records and transcripts may disappear in as little as 30 days if not requested.
  • Do not make a formal complaint to the police.  At least not without acting through competent legal counsel.  Police should never investigate themselves. But that’s exactly what happens in West Virginia, and many other states.  In regards to the West Virginia State Police, in particular, and other larger agencies, this is a huge mistake that people make.  Why?
    • Witness Intimidation.  If an individual makes a formal complaint, for instance to the State Police, they are presented with a piece of paper they are forced to sign which warns them that they will be prosecuted if they are found to have given false information.  This is purely a threat meant to having a chilling effect and to scare off victims of police misconduct who would otherwise complain.
    • Interrogation.  The next thing that happens is, an “investigator” from the agency will want to interview you.  This is not an actual unbiased interview.  This is an interrogation.  They will, perhaps secretly, record the questioning.  Without a lawyer present, a detective will perform an interrogation. They will ask you leading questions.  They will essentially take your deposition, but without your lawyer present.  You will not be given a copy of the recording.  The agency will save it, and later use the recording against you in court.  I have seen it happen many times.
    • Building a defense.  The “investigator” will obtain information from you – not for the purposes of determining whether the complaint is justified, but for the purposes of undermining your allegations.  If you tell them a particular person witnessed the event, they can now go confront that person.  They can tailor their defense to counter your exact allegations.  I am generalizing.  Of course some investigators are honest and will do the right thing.  But for the purposes of protecting yourself, you should assume they are not.
    • Photographs.  If the complaint pertained to excessive force, or resulted in injuries, the “investigator” will take photographs of you.  These photographs may be taken at a time when injuries have become less visible, or healed.  They may be taken in such a way as to minimize their appearance, rather than to document the truth.
  • Call an attorney experienced in civil rights law as soon as possible.  You can’t call just any lawyer for a civil rights case.  The area of civil rights, and in particular police misconduct, is a small niche area of the practice of law. Most licensed lawyers will be inexperienced in civil rights law.  There are only a handful of competent civil rights plaintiffs’ lawyers in West Virginia who regularly handle these types of cases.  I often get referrals from other lawyers across West Virginia who encounter clients with civil rights complaints. There are special aspects of the law in these types of cases that have nothing to do with automobile accident cases, or even criminal defense cases.  Make sure whichever lawyer you call can demonstrate a record of successfully handling these types of cases.  For years, I have been teaching other lawyers, government leaders, and law enforcement administrators, seminars on the law of police liability and civil rights litigation.

March 29, 2018 Posted by | Civil Liability, Excessive Force, Governmental Liability, John H. Bryan, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Police, Police Misconduct, Searches and Seizures, Trials | Leave a comment

Civil Rights Trial in Federal Court in Charleston This Week

Starting tomorrow, the Carpenter civil rights case will be tried before a jury in federal court in Charleston.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia already issued an order finding that the Carpenters civil rights were likely violated, and ordering the case to trial:

Carpenter v. Perry (S.D. W. Va., 2017)

December 4, 2017 Posted by | Civil Liability, John H. Bryan, Searches and Seizures, Trials | Leave a comment

Fourth Circuit Open Carry Decision

The Fourth Circuit issued a decision bolstering our 2nd Amendment rights.  The case is styled  USA v. Nathaniel Black, out of the Western District of North Carolina.  Essentially, a guy who was a convicted felon was open carrying a firearm.  He was then seized by police, who were subsequently able to determine that he was not allowed to possess a firearm.  But, was it an unconstitutional seizure since they didn’t know before they seized the guy that he was committing a crime by possessing a firearm?

The 4th Circuit held that it was unconstitutional to seize the man merely because they observed him with a holstered handgun, since they had no reason to believe that he was legally barred from possessing firearms, or that he was engaging in any other illegal activity.  The importance of this decision is that it protects our 2nd Amendment rights.  If it is legal for us to openly carry a handgun, then law enforcement is unable to seize us in order to determine our criminal record, harass us, etc.  The case has all the goodies when it comes to search and seizure case law in the Fourth Circuit (WV, VA, NC, MD).

March 20, 2013 Posted by | Concealed Weapons, Police, Police Misconduct, Searches and Seizures, Self Defense, Suppression, West Virginia Concealed Carry Laws, West Virginia Gun Laws | 3 Comments

New West Virginia Search and Seizure Statute

New legislation has been passed in West Virginia dealing with search and seizure.  It was pushed by the ACLU, who of course were only concerned for minorities having their rights disregarded.  But the fact is that everyone, across the board, has had their rights trampled when it comes to traffic searches and seizures.

It essentially provides that no longer can law enforcement merely testify after-the-fact that the vehicle owner consented to a search of his or her vehicle.  This, by the way, is pretty much the foundation for 80% of criminal prosecutions.  Either people are too dumb/ignorant/naive  to realize that they can say “no” to the officer who is asking to search their vehicle, or the cop just “testi-lies” after-the-fact that consent was given, when in fact it was not.  Who do you think the judge is going to believe, the law enforcement officer, or the guy who had marijuana/concealed weapon, etc. in his car?

Pursuant to this new statute, consent must now be recorded, either in writing through an approved form, or through an audio/video recording.  It must be communicated to the suspect that he or she has the right to refuse the search.  It also provides that he or she can revoke their consent at any time.  Though this may be dicey, because the revocation would not be recorded unless there was a dash cam, or other recorder, recording the audio.  The one exception for the recordation of consent is if there is an issue of officer safety.  Basically, if the cop can articulate some justification for believing there may be some weapon that could potentially harm him or her, then the statute flies out the window.

Remember, states are generally free to provide greater protection of civil liberties than is provided for in the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the US Supreme Court), which West Virginia has done here.  However, states are not free to provide less protection.  Hence, West Virginia could not pass a statute (that would be constitutional) which would allow officers to search vehicles without probable cause or consent.

The statute will take effect January 11, 2011.

Here is the statute:

A BILL to amend of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto two new sections, designated §62-1A-10 and §62- 1A-11, all relating to searches of motor vehicles by law- enforcement officers; establishing criteria; and requiring rules.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:

That the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended by adding thereto two new sections, designated §62-1A-10 and §62- 1A-11, all to read as follows:

ARTICLE 1A. SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
§62-1A-10. Motor vehicle searches.

(a) A law-enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic may not search the vehicle unless the law-enforcement officer:
(1) Has probable cause or another legal basis for the search;
(2) Conducts a search for weapons based on an articulation of a reasonable fear for the officer’s safety or the safety of others;
(3) Obtains the written consent of the operator of the vehicle on a form that complies with subsection (b), section eleven of this article; or
(4) Obtains the oral consent of the operator of the vehicle and ensures that the oral consent is evidenced by an audio and video recording that complies with subsection (c), section eleven of this article.
(b) This section takes effect on January 1, 2011.

§62-1A-11. Rules for certain evidence of consent to vehicle search.

(a) To facilitate the implementation of section ten of this article the Director of the Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Corrections, in consultation with the Division of Motor Vehicles, shall propose emergency and legislative rules in accordance with article three, chapter twenty-nine-a of this code to establish the requirements for:
(1) A form used to obtain the written consent of the operator of a motor vehicle under section ten of this article; and
(2) An audio and video recording used as evidence of the oral consent of the operator of a motor vehicle under section ten of this article.
(b) At a minimum, the rules adopted under subsection (a) of this section must require the form to contain:
(1) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle fully understands that the operator may refuse to give the law- enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle is freely and voluntarily giving the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(3) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle may withdraw the consent at any time during the search;
(4) The time and date of the stop giving rise to the search;
(5) A description of the motor vehicle to be searched; and
(6) The name of each law-enforcement officer conducting the stop or search.
(c) At a minimum, the rules adopted under subdivision (2), subsection (a) of this section must require the audio and video recording to reflect an affirmative statement made by the operator that:
(1) The operator of the motor vehicle understands that the operator may refuse to give the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) The operator of the motor vehicle is voluntarily giving the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle; and
(3) The operator of the motor vehicle was informed that the operator may withdraw the consent at any time during the search.
(d) The Director of the Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Corrections shall adopt the rules required by this section no later than December 31, 2010.

NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to provide procedures to protect motor vehicle operators with regard to searches of their motor vehicles by law-enforcement officers.

§§62-1A-10 and 62-1A-11 are new; therefore, strike-throughs and underscoring have been omitted.

April 14, 2010 Posted by | Searches and Seizures, Suppression, Vehicular Crimes | 4 Comments

In the name of “officer safety”

Rick Horowitz from Probable Cause had an interesting post regarding “officer safety” and the rights of motorists.  In essence, his theory, which has long been a pet peeve of mine, is that supposed “officer safety” is used to violate the rights of motorists.  If you have ever tried an “obstruction” case, you will hear the prosecutor ask officers who conducted a “traffic” stop questions about their training and “officer safety” and why they instruct persons to get out of the vehicle – or to not get out of the vehicle – or to put their hands in a certain place, and so on and so forth.  Many times this coincidentally coincides with the officer(s) subsequently finding something incriminating in the vehicle.  For example, here is a portion of transcript from an obstruction (among other things) trial:

7       Q   So you turned on your blue lights; right?           

8       A   Yes.                                                

9       Q   And the purpose of doing that is to tell the driver 

10  of the vehicle what?                                         

11       A   To pull over.                                       

12       Q   And, was it clear to you, that there was a driver   

13  of that truck, with the Florida tags; you should see the     

14  driver?                                                      

15       A   Yes.                                                

16       Q   Did you attend the State Police Academy before      

17  becoming a West Virginia State Trooper?                      

18       A   Yes.  All troopers are required to attend the       

19  Academy before —                                            

20       Q   And how long — how long is the Academy?            

21       A   It’s going to be for 30 weeks, equivalent to seven  

22  months.                                                      

23       Q   And, as part of your training, do you receive       

24  specific training in traffic stops?                          

Page 359 

1       A   Yes, we do.  Like a lot if training, they try to go 

2  over and over.  What the purpose of that is – they call it   

3  muscle memory – when you get into a high-stress situation,   

4  or your stress level elevates, whatever you practice, their  

5  theory is that you’ll just automatically — you’ll           

6  automatically do in a high-stress situation.                 

7       Q   And from your training, and experience as a West    

8  Virginia State Trooper, are traffic stops considered high-   

9  stress situations?                                           

10       A   Yes.  Through the training that we received,        

11  everything other than a known felony stop, we actually       

12  consider an unknown stop, which is an unknown risk.  Mainly  

13  because we don’t know the driver, we don’t know who’s in the 

14  vehicle or what’s in the vehicle.  So, yes, they all — all  

15  of them are considered high-stress and possible risk stops.  

16       Q   And, from your training at the Academy, and then    

17  after you were out of the Academy, were you taught, and      

18  trained, in what percentage of police officers — shootings  

19  of police officers occur during what should be routine       

20  traffic stops?                                               

21       A   Yes.  It’s actually a higher percent than I like.   

22  Actually, I believe the US Supreme Court had a case on it,   

23  referenced where up to 30 percent of actual police shootings 

24  occurred during routine police traffic stops.                

Page 360 

1       Q   Now, as a practicing Trooper, can you estimate how  

2  many traffic stops you have made a month, at this point?     

3       A   And I don’t do a lot of traffic, some’s a lot       

4  higher than this, but I usually pull over, I would say,      

5  between 25 to 35 cars a month, for various traffic reasons.  

6       Q   And when you make those traffic stops, do you       

7  follow the procedures that you were taught in your training  

8  at the West Virginia State Police Academy?                   

9       A   Yes, ma’am, every time.                             

10       Q   As to the particular procedures that you were       

11  taught, what is the goal, what’s the purpose of those        

12  procedures that you are to follow in making a traffic stop,  

13  as a State Policeman?                                        

14       A   The main thing is, basically, risk reduction, for   

15  the safety of everybody there.                               

16       Q   And does that include safety of the officer?        

17       A   That includes the safety of the officer, safety of  

18  whoever we’re pulling over in the vehicle, along with the    

19  public safety.                                               

20       Q   And what are the risk factors in the traffic stop,  

21  that your procedures are designed to reduce?                 

22       A   With that, especially, and probably most of you can 

23  relate to seeing videos of being beside the roadway.  First  

24  off, it’s very dangerous for traffic stops, for other        

Page 361 

1  traffic coming by, just ’cause you’re in such close proximity 

2  to the traffic flow; that, in one, is dangerous.             

3       Two, like I said, you don’t never know who the driver   

4  is, or who you’re pulling over.  Mainly, if you’re doing a   

5  traffic stop – and, mostly, I’m going to give somebody a     

6  warning, but the driver don’t know that – and if it’s        

7  somebody else, it could be very dangerous.  Or, if they      

8  robbed a bank, thirty minutes down the road, and I’m unaware 

9  of that, they might have a gun, or something that could      

10  actually hinder myself during this stop, which I’m unaware   

11  of.                                                          

12       Q   And what about the flight risk; could you explain   

13  to the jurors the risk of flight when you have an unknown    

14  traffic stop?                                                

15       A   Yes.  And it is highly likely that, you know, even  

16  when I get out of the vehicle, that the car might pull off.  

17  Several occasions, you go to approach the vehicle and        

18  somebody – I mean, I’m sure you’ve seen it on TV – jumps out 

19  of the vehicle and takes off running.  So — and if I        

20  actually approach the vehicle and, let’s say, they are       

21  wanting to cause me harm, and they are able to do some kind  

22  of harm from me, it’s very possible for them just to take    

23  off without any help to myself.                              

24       Q   When you pull over the vehicle, either because it   

Page 362 

1  — the driver is a suspect in a crime, or because of a       

2  traffic violation, when you pull over a vehicle, is there    

3  information that you are supposed to relay, and also         

4  information that, by your training and experience as a West  

5  Virginia State Trooper, you are supposed to be receiving?    

6       A   Yes, ma’am.  The start off, every time we perform a 

7  traffic stop, we always want to notify our dispatcher —     

8  advise ’em of our location, that we’re actually on a traffic 

9  stop, so they can check on us and know what we’re doing.     

10  Some information you want to give to start off with is color 

11  of the vehicle, like I said, the location of where the stop  

12  is.  And also important, is the license plate of the         

13  vehicle.  With the license plate, they’re able to return the 

14  vehicle it’s supposed to be on, who owns the vehicle.  And   

15  they also can check to see if that license plate or vehicle  

16  has been stolen, or is a stolen vehicle.                     

17       Q   And do you do that, as much as possible, unless you 

18  are obstructed or prevented from doing that, every time you  

19  make a traffic stop?                                         

20       A   Yes, ma’am.                                         

21       Q   Now, do you — are there standard procedures, that  

22  you learned in your training, and you practice in your 25 to 

23  30 traffic stops a month, first of all, as to whether or not 

24  you want the driver to stay in the vehicle, or get out of    

Page 363 

1  the vehicle?                                                 

2       A   Yeah.  Through our training, and it might vary from 

3  department to department, but what we want is the driver to  

4  actually stay in the vehicle.                                

5       Q   And why is that, explain that, if you would?        

6       A   The reason to have them stay in the vehicle, it’s   

7  more of a con — we have more control if they’re in the      

8  vehicle.  For the safety issue, like I said, to mention      

9  first, it’s a — a lot of times, we’re on the highway,       

10  interstate, busy roads, if the driver’s in the vehicle, it’s 

11  a lot less likely that he’s going to get hit by a passing    

12  car.  Two, we’re able to approach the vehicle and kind of    

13  keep an eye on the driver and see what he’s doing.  Where,   

14  if he gets out of the vehicle he could either (a) run, or do 

15  something else, which would make us have a lot less control  

16  over the driver.                                             

17       Q   Are you even taught, and trained, to stand in a     

18  particular relation to the driver’s door?                    

19       A   Yes.  And, as we’re taught, when we’re approaching  

20  a vehicle – and if you ever — anyone’s ever got pulled      

21  over, you maybe even noticed this and wondered – I always    

22  take my hand and touch the back of the vehicle in case       

23  something happens, you know, and the driver leaves.  Maybe   

24  somebody might be able to put my connection with that        Page 363 

1  the vehicle?                                                 

2       A   Yeah.  Through our training, and it might vary from 

3  department to department, but what we want is the driver to  

4  actually stay in the vehicle.                                

5       Q   And why is that, explain that, if you would?        

6       A   The reason to have them stay in the vehicle, it’s   

7  more of a con — we have more control if they’re in the      

8  vehicle.  For the safety issue, like I said, to mention      

9  first, it’s a — a lot of times, we’re on the highway,       

10  interstate, busy roads, if the driver’s in the vehicle, it’s 

11  a lot less likely that he’s going to get hit by a passing    

12  car.  Two, we’re able to approach the vehicle and kind of    

13  keep an eye on the driver and see what he’s doing.  Where,   

14  if he gets out of the vehicle he could either (a) run, or do 

15  something else, which would make us have a lot less control  

16  over the driver.                                             

17       Q   Are you even taught, and trained, to stand in a     

18  particular relation to the driver’s door?                    

19       A   Yes.  And, as we’re taught, when we’re approaching  

20  a vehicle – and if you ever — anyone’s ever got pulled      

21  over, you maybe even noticed this and wondered – I always    

22  take my hand and touch the back of the vehicle in case       

23  something happens, you know, and the driver leaves.  Maybe   

 

Page 364 

1  vehicle.                                                     

2       As I’m continuing to approach the driver, we can always 

3  look through the back glass and the windows, see if he’s     

4  maybe reaching under his seat to grab a firearm or trying to 

5  hide something he’s not supposed to have.  With standing at  

6  the vehicle, we always like to stand right behind the driver 

7  door, which allows us to have a — the best view we can of   

8  inside the vehicle, to check to see if there’s anything      

9  that’s not supposed to be there, or any weapons that the     

10  driver might be able to reach and grab.                      

11       Q   And would it be fair to say that, obviously, any    

12  time the driver is allowed out of the vehicle, that          

13  increases the flight risk, and the risk to the public?       

14       A   Right, yes.                                         

15       Q   Then what about your training and experience as a   

16  State Policeman, what do you instruct – order – the driver   

17  to do, if he gets out, as to his hands?                      

18       A   And, on traffic stops, it happens, sometimes the    

19  driver will go to get out of the vehicle.  Order them to get 

20  back in the vehicle and, usually, they comply with that      

21  order, and then wait for me to approach ’em.                 

22       Q   And if a driver gets out of the vehicle against     

23  your orders, what do you tell them — where do you want his  

24  hands?                                                       Page 364 

1  vehicle.                                                     

2       As I’m continuing to approach the driver, we can always 

3  look through the back glass and the windows, see if he’s     

4  maybe reaching under his seat to grab a firearm or trying to 

5  hide something he’s not supposed to have.  With standing at  

6  the vehicle, we always like to stand right behind the driver 

7  door, which allows us to have a — the best view we can of   

8  inside the vehicle, to check to see if there’s anything      

9  that’s not supposed to be there, or any weapons that the     

10  driver might be able to reach and grab.                      

11       Q   And would it be fair to say that, obviously, any    

12  time the driver is allowed out of the vehicle, that          

13  increases the flight risk, and the risk to the public?       

14       A   Right, yes.                                         

15       Q   Then what about your training and experience as a   

16  State Policeman, what do you instruct – order – the driver   

17  to do, if he gets out, as to his hands?                      

18       A   And, on traffic stops, it happens, sometimes the    

19  driver will go to get out of the vehicle.  Order them to get 

20  back in the vehicle and, usually, they comply with that      

21  order, and then wait for me to approach ’em.                 

22       Q   And if a driver gets out of the vehicle against     

23  your orders, what do you tell them — where do you want his  

24  hands?                                                       

Page 365 

1       A   If a driver gets out of the vehicle, and he’s not   

2  replying, of course, the stress level and the threat level   

3  increases, first because he’s not obeying my order, which is 

4  a lawful order.  Second, with the hands, I don’t want ’em    

5  anywhere near the coats or pockets, where they could reach   

6  — or anything that might cause me harm.  Either up in the   

7  air where I can see ’em, up on the vehicle where I know he   

8  can’t reach and grab anything to — that might harm myself   

9  or any public.                                               

10       Q   Was there a phrase that you were taught, that your  

11  instructors at the Academy used, to emphasize the need to    

12  keep the suspect hands up in the air or on a car?            

13       DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Your Honor, I’m going to object to    

14  the leading nature of this —                                

15       THE COURT:  Overruled; 611 allows me to permit this     

16  type of preliminary stuff.  I’m going to allow it; go ahead. 

17       THE WITNESS:  Yes, as the — as the instruction — in   

18  the Academy, they often teach us, they always tell us that   

19  feet can hurt you, but hands can kill you.  Basically,       

20  meaning just, you know, being kicked and stuff can hurt you, 

21  but the hands can always grab a weapon such as a knife or a  

22  firearm.                                                     

23  PROSECUTOR (resuming):                                    

24       Q   Now, on the evening of June 8th of ’07, after you   

Page 366 

1  turned on your blue lights, can you tell the jury what did   

2  the defendant do?    

As I said, this has long been a pet peeve of mine.  Of course we all respect law enforcement officers and acknowledge that they have a sometimes dangerous and difficult job – just like many other professions.  However, they chose to be law enforcement officers.  And they chose to pull someone over for a “traffic” violation.  That they are worried, or trained to be worried, about their own safety, should not make it okay for them to treat someone like a criminal.  It’s one thing if you are pulling over a bank robbery suspect, but if you are pulling someone over for going 6 mph over the limit, you should not have your hand on your gun.  You should not shout at someone as if they are armed and dangerous.  Why should someone pulled over for a traffic violation have to keep their hands on the wheel?  What can be more demeaning that to be treated like a criminal as a practice and procedure of a law enforcement agency?  I would venture to say that more people are probably wrongly shot by law enforcement officers because they are jumpy due to all of this “training” than law enforcement officers who are actually shot by a traffic-stop motorist (especially in high crime areas where “traffic” stops are mostly investigatory pretext stops).  Don’t believe me?  Google it.  And surely, more officers are hit by passing motorists distracted by the emergency lights than who are shot.  And that is unfortunate, but it was their choice to engage in a profession where they have to stand on the side of the road and encounter strangers in cars.  That is just a risk that comes with the job.  It is not okay to feel safer by violating the rights and respect of innocent persons.

And it definitely is not okay to abuse the purpose of “officer safety” in order to assist in more efficient criminal prosecution, which is done in mainly two ways, such as was the case in the above-transcripted case: (1) to achieve an initial arrest of the person in order to question them and inventory/search their vehicle, and (2) to throw in yet another charge to try the suspect on and/or use for plea negotiations.  

Note: the defendant in the above-transcripted case was found not guilty of obstruction, despite the lengthy oratory of the prosecutor and trooper.

 – John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.

July 15, 2009 Posted by | Police, Police Misconduct, Searches and Seizures, Vehicular Crimes | 1 Comment

Interesting Appeal Filed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

About a month and a half ago, I mentioned that I was working on a petition for appeal that contained a factual scenario extremely similar to the Arizona v. Gant holding.  Well, it was filed early this month, and now my client has authorized me to post a copy of the filed petition.  I think it contains some interesting legal issues which have yet to be examined in West Virginia, one of which will be the use of Arizona v. Gant as it applies to “inventory” searches in West Virginia.

Additionally, this is an extremely odd case (factually).  And its one of those where the police and the prosecutor really went after the guy and he ended up getting the proverbial “book” thrown at him.  It illustrates the danger of jury trials, and the power of the prosecutor.  If they want you punished, there are enough laws out there that they can bend the facts around, that they can turn you into a felon pretty quickly – not to mention a registered sex offender.  And then they can charge you with multiple counts, basically restricted only by their whim.  The only way to stop them is to appeal.

Also, a H/T to Tom Rist for assisting with the case.

View this document on Scribd

June 24, 2009 Posted by | Appeals, Evidence, John H. Bryan, Searches and Seizures, Suppression, Trials | Leave a comment