Видео

An individual remains on the list indefinitely. Removal can be possible if there are factual changes or additional information provided that changes the prosecutor's analysis in some circumstances - but it all depends on the original basis for listing. Thanks for watching - and for your comment.

You're misinformed. Once an officer is placed on the list, you can not be removed. Regardless of rank.

I've successfully represented individuals who have been removed from the list - but this isn't a sure thing. It all depends on the factual circumstances behind the original listing.

@AZPoliceLawyer I suspect the circumstances didn't meet the criteria in the first place.

@tjmayer9103 I'm sorry but you are misinformed.

I would hope we both can agree that the DOJ should be accurate in its report - if that is what we expect the public and elected officials to rely upon in any way when assessing whether the Phoenix Police Department has a "pattern or practice" of unconstitutional policing. This video is one example (of many - see here (ruclips.net/video/ybuMOU0xWms/видео.html) - here (ruclips.net/video/7IbergOLV7A/видео.html) - here (ruclips.net/video/It_KIiAtQlE/видео.html) and here (ruclips.net/video/vSiK0qBYSIo/видео.html)) where the DOJ report misrepresents incidents in their report. My question to you is - what percentage of incidents would the DOJ report need to get wrong before you believed they had a "pattern or practice" of misleading the public? Then the second question would be, what percentage of police contacts would PPD need to get wrong for you to find a "pattern or practice" of unconstitutional policing? The public should demand transparency and accountability. But this should also apply to the DOJ's investigations and reports.

you got lucky

I would hope we both can agree that the DOJ should be accurate in its report - if that is what we expect the public and elected officials to rely upon in any way when assessing whether the Phoenix Police Department has a "pattern or practice" of unconstitutional policing. This video is one example (of many - see here (ruclips.net/video/ybuMOU0xWms/видео.html) - here (ruclips.net/video/7IbergOLV7A/видео.html) - here (ruclips.net/video/It_KIiAtQlE/видео.html) and here (ruclips.net/video/vSiK0qBYSIo/видео.html)) where the DOJ report misrepresents incidents in their report. My question to you is - what percentage of incidents would the DOJ report need to get wrong before you believed they had a "pattern or practice" of misleading the public? Then the second question would be, what percentage of police contacts would PPD need to get wrong for you to find a "pattern or practice" of unconstitutional policing? The public should demand transparency and accountability. But this should also apply to the DOJ's investigations and reports.

I want to see the video to see if this isn't someone the department hired

In this instance, the Phoenix Police Department had probable cause to detain the man for the commission of the crimes outlined in the video - as reported by multiple callers from the mental health facility into the 911 system.

@@AZPoliceLawyer then why didnt they say in the video that he was under arrest?

@@anthonydavis7151 officers have discretion on whether or not to go through with an arrest. In this case they felt the better option was mental health treatment at a facility with a higher level of care

Cops in (Florida I think) arrested a guy for something the law specifically listed as legal. It wasn't even buried deep in a subsection either. Like part A: you can't do that. part B: unless you're at home or on your property. He was in his yard.

They have to complete training sessions, no one says they have to become educated nor demonstrate competency.

"Create their narrative with other associates" ...With their Bodycams muted, to Conspire with other cops. How is that Still legal?

My point is that many of the examples in the DOJ report are falsely presented. And the DOJ refuses to identify their source material. So we conducted an analysis of a number of incidents and found inaccurate information - something that should concern everyone. We should expect that all law enforcement - and the DOJ - are accurate and transparent - and the DOJ's report fails to meet that expectation. I've done a number of videos highlighting specific examples of where the DOJ misrepresented incidents - feel free to check out those videos.

@@AZPoliceLawyer I absolutely will.

Check out this one- ruclips.net/video/ybuMOU0xWms/видео.html - this one - ruclips.net/video/vSiK0qBYSIo/видео.html - this one - ruclips.net/video/It_KIiAtQlE/видео.html - and this one - ruclips.net/video/7IbergOLV7A/видео.html with more to come!

@@AZPoliceLawyer I'll check these out. Thanks for passing these along. Going to take some time to get through though. In the meantime, I'll leave you with this (and a promise to drop another comment when I get through everything). So I believe there is some validity to what you're saying - DOJ didn't cite factual materials/sources and looks like it did mischaracterize some incidents (I looked Jacob Harris, the Begay Incident, & James Garcia so far). I haven't finished reading the DOJ report yet. The report uses hundreds of incidents for it's basis (here's one - go to LackLuster and search Phoenix PD. "Corrupt Cops Sued After Massive Cover-up Exposed" is the title). From a common sense standpoint, you can't cite a few examples and claim that a pattern or practice doesn't exist when weighed against hundreds of incidents. And really, how mad can the PPD be that the DOJ mischaracterized some things? PPD has been doing it for years in their reports and now someone did it to them. It's the pot calling the kettle black. If you can't find the video above, try searching on San Joaquin Valley Transparency. These videos were much of the factual evidence used by the DOJ. If you're looking for factual material, these are good places to start. And finally, let's not forget that PPD opened the door for this. One of the patterns & practices is not taking officer complaints so people complained to the DOJ. DOJ received so many, that they HAD to open an investigation. This is like a coach telling a fighter not to leave the decision up to the ref because the ref might get something wrong. Years of constitutional rights violations finally caught up to the PPD and now the DOJ is here. PPD's own conduct brought them here and PPD has no one to blame but themselves and their culture of a lack of accountability. More to follow.

A few things here - 1) I'm very familiar with the DOJ investigation. There's no evidence the Phoenix Police Department or the City of Phoenix having any pattern or practice of refusing to take or act upon complaints. Phoenix residents can call for a supervisor on the non-emergency line (those calls are recorded); call the Professional Standards Bureau (every call there is recorded and tracked); call the City Manager's Office or a member of City Council; call the City Auditor, and many, many other venues. 2) There's no evidence that the DOJ received complaints that weren't otherwise investigated. They haven't produced any of those alleged uninvestigated complaints, and they certainly aren't contained in the report. 3) Phoenix's process - although not perfect (there are no perfect processes) also involves the opportunity for civilian review/oversight. And PSB investigations (when complete) are subject to public records release. 4) Phoenix's DOJ website has the actual, factual basis for the vast majority of the incidents contained in the DOJ report (btw - it's not hundreds of incidents, the report cites ~140). It shows that almost every one of the allegations cited in the DOJ report was investigated/reviewed by Phoenix at the time the conduct occurred. When officer misconduct was found, it was addressed (yet the DOJ report often omits any discussion of corrective action). 5) Phoenix Police is a large agency - with millions of civilian contacts a year. Isolated incidents of misconduct do not constitute a "pattern or practice" that requires federal intervention - otherwise every police agency in the United States would face DOJ oversight. That's not my opinion either - that's the holding of federal courts interpreting the DOJ's jurisdiction. 6) A major issue we found with the DOJ report is that it contains multiple misleading or even false reporting of what happened. After a three year investigation, the DOJ should be accurate. And they also should be transparent. Yet they refuse to show their work, and simply ask the public and the Police to trust them - trust their assessment of a circumstance. This is unreasonable in my opinion - and isn't the standard that Phoenix used in responding to the investigation. I'll leave you with a question - what percent of false or misleading incidents contained in the report would lead you to believe that the DOJ had a "pattern or practice" of being wrong? Then, after your answer, I'd ask what percent of PPD contacts do you believe involve unconstitutional policing that was unaddressed by the agency? Thanks for your comments.

This case came out before the Supreme Court decided Bruen, so the officers were evaluating the situation based upon caselaw at the time

This case came out before Bruen, so officers were evaluating the situation based upon caselaw prior to that holding.

Cops systemically fail to follow the law. Cops get sued every day. Cops are supposed to know that they can't arrest someone on their own property unless they are fleeing from a felony level crime. The problem is that cops don't every really get into trouble when they don't follow the law. Sure, you can sue them sometimes, but the cops virtually never pay the settlement, the taxpayers pay the settlement.

If he had a Public Defender, he'd be in jail for 10 years.

They have no reasonable articulable suspicion prior to the arrest, so no.

They knew he was a felon before all this?

However, they said they didn't know him so they had no idea if Nora was a felon. The police like to treat everyone as a criminal but they shouldn't.

But they have no clue who the guy is or what record he might have, if any. That old adage "the information the officer had AT THE TIME" is a sword that swings both directions. In this case, all the info they had was that a guy possibly on his own curtilege might have had a loaded firearm, which might or might not have constituted some sort of violation.

At the time, in California, the way Nora displayed the gun was illegal. This was prior to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision

Remember, this situation happened prior to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision

Qualified immunity applies when the law isn't clearly settled. Qualified immunity applies when officers are acting in good faith, consistent with their training, and when the law isn't clearly established.

@@AZPoliceLawyer Bringing a complaint of bad faith to the court is beyond the means of most people who are abused by the police. Do I think QI should be eliminated? Yes.

@@AZPoliceLawyer Why is it citizens are not given that same latitude?

@USMC6976 - Citizens aren't responsible for acting under the authority of law. Police officers (and a limited number of other public officials) are tasked with acting on behalf of the government and face situations where the law isn't clearly established. Remember, the original qualified immunity case came about when a police officer was enforcing a law that was enacted by the legislature (and had not been challenged in court/found to be unconstitutional). Officers are expected to enforce the law - even if the law is eventually found to be unconstitutional. Citizens don't face the same expectation (as they aren't enforcing laws or acting under the authority of the government). Thanks for your comment - and for your question. For more information on qualified immunity, check out this video - ruclips.net/video/V4eYDWWJc1g/видео.html