The other day my colleague and fellow National Lawyer Guild member Greg Gladden was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! The story was about the infiltration of the Occupy movement by an undercover Austin police officer.
Here is the interview video...
Greg Gladden did an incredible job in this case. He was able to uncover the infiltration of the group and had the guts to take it before the judge. And he did this pro bono.
My hat's off to you, Greg, for a job very well done.
Showing posts with label Austin Police Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Austin Police Department. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Protecting and serving the interests of the 1%
Shannon Powell is a narcotics detective with the Austin Police Department.
He's also a rat. An agent provacateur, if you will.
But maybe you just know him as Butch.
You know Butch. He's that guy who came down to Austin to protest at the Port of Houston back in December. He's the one who suggested the protesters use a device known as a sleeping dragon to link their arms together to block the main entrance into the Port of Houston.
Yeah, that Butch.
And now Detective Powell has found himself in the crosshairs of Judge Joan Campbell of Harris County's 248th District Court where seven protesters find themselves charged with the felony offense of unlawful use of a criminal instrument.
The charges were initially dismissed by Judge Campbell for lack of probable cause. Not to be deterred, the Harris County District Attorney's Office somehow convinced a grand jury to indict the protesters. I don't know if they had to threaten them, twist their arms or just say "please."
Then in February an anonymous e-mail announced that Butch was actually an undercover officer who had left the Occupy Austin encampment on the day the police evicted the protesters. Butch had purchased, built and delivered the sleeping dragons to protesters in Austin who were traveling down to Austin to participate in the Occupy the Port protest.
When subpoenaed to appear before Judge Campbell, Mr. Powell claimed to have lost most of the digital material about his involvement with the Occupy protesters. Oops.
It is clear that the Austin Police Department was watching Occupy Austin from inside and out. For those in the progressive community, such actions aren't shocking or unexpected. However, having that same undercover officer design and deliver the devices that would subject protesters to felony charges goes above and beyond.
Houston criminal defense attorney, and National Lawyers Guild member, Greg Gladden must be commended for the work he did on this case. It is because of his tireless effort that Mr. Powell has been thrust into the spotlight. It is because of his work that the public can see just what it is that the police are really up to.
Forget this protect and serve bullshit. The police have been used to crush dissent in this country for decades. The police have long been the paid lackeys of the corporate bosses and have not hesitated in the past to aim their weapons at striking workers. The police were the day-to-day enforcers of Jim Crow in the south. And now we find them ankle deep in the Occupy movement.
From day one the powers that be have done their best to marginalize the Occupy movement. They have tried to portray them as college kids longing for a movement to call their own. They have called the Occupy movement harmless and nothing more than a momentary distraction.
But, if the Occupy movement were no threat to them, why would we see undercover officers and agents imbed themselves inside the groups in order to sabotage them? Why would the Austin Police Department have Mr. Powell designing and building sleeping dragons to be used in a protest in Houston? Why would the Houston Police Department have informers inside the Houston organization feeding them information and gossip?
And they damn near got away with it.
He's also a rat. An agent provacateur, if you will.
But maybe you just know him as Butch.
You know Butch. He's that guy who came down to Austin to protest at the Port of Houston back in December. He's the one who suggested the protesters use a device known as a sleeping dragon to link their arms together to block the main entrance into the Port of Houston.
Yeah, that Butch.
And now Detective Powell has found himself in the crosshairs of Judge Joan Campbell of Harris County's 248th District Court where seven protesters find themselves charged with the felony offense of unlawful use of a criminal instrument.
The charges were initially dismissed by Judge Campbell for lack of probable cause. Not to be deterred, the Harris County District Attorney's Office somehow convinced a grand jury to indict the protesters. I don't know if they had to threaten them, twist their arms or just say "please."
Then in February an anonymous e-mail announced that Butch was actually an undercover officer who had left the Occupy Austin encampment on the day the police evicted the protesters. Butch had purchased, built and delivered the sleeping dragons to protesters in Austin who were traveling down to Austin to participate in the Occupy the Port protest.
When subpoenaed to appear before Judge Campbell, Mr. Powell claimed to have lost most of the digital material about his involvement with the Occupy protesters. Oops.
It is clear that the Austin Police Department was watching Occupy Austin from inside and out. For those in the progressive community, such actions aren't shocking or unexpected. However, having that same undercover officer design and deliver the devices that would subject protesters to felony charges goes above and beyond.
Houston criminal defense attorney, and National Lawyers Guild member, Greg Gladden must be commended for the work he did on this case. It is because of his tireless effort that Mr. Powell has been thrust into the spotlight. It is because of his work that the public can see just what it is that the police are really up to.
Forget this protect and serve bullshit. The police have been used to crush dissent in this country for decades. The police have long been the paid lackeys of the corporate bosses and have not hesitated in the past to aim their weapons at striking workers. The police were the day-to-day enforcers of Jim Crow in the south. And now we find them ankle deep in the Occupy movement.
From day one the powers that be have done their best to marginalize the Occupy movement. They have tried to portray them as college kids longing for a movement to call their own. They have called the Occupy movement harmless and nothing more than a momentary distraction.
But, if the Occupy movement were no threat to them, why would we see undercover officers and agents imbed themselves inside the groups in order to sabotage them? Why would the Austin Police Department have Mr. Powell designing and building sleeping dragons to be used in a protest in Houston? Why would the Houston Police Department have informers inside the Houston organization feeding them information and gossip?
And they damn near got away with it.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Blood or breath?
Is a blood test more accurate than a breath test? Is either one reliable when it comes to proving whether a motorist had an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher?
The answer in Austin may very well be no and no.
An Austin defense attorney reported that his client had a blood sample taken on a No Refusal weekend. That sample was tested by the Austin Police Department's crime lab. The result came back showing his client had an alcohol concentration of .10. The defense attorney had the blood retested by the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Science in Dallas. Their test showed an alcohol concentration of .08.
What happened?
While it is true that as alcohol metabolizes in the body the alcohol concentration decreases, when blood is stored in a sealed tube there is no way for the alcohol in the blood to metabolize. In fact, it is more likely that the alcohol concentration would increase due to contamination of the blood.
First a little primer on blood testing. When a blood sample is drawn in a DWI case, the person drawing the blood typically makes two draws in two separate tubes. One tube is the "state's" tube and the other tube is there in case the defense wants to retest it. The technician in the lab will prepare two samples from the tubes for testing in a gas chromatograph. This gives us four test results. Typically the lowest result is the alcohol concentration used at trial.
In Austin, however, they average the four results to come up with an alcohol concentration. That raises questions of which blood sample is the actual sample to be used at trial. It also raises questions about the validity of the method by which APD determines alcohol concentration.
APD officials weren't concerned about the 20% discrepancy in the test results. What's a couple hundredths of a gram anyone, right?
APD claims that the differing results could have been caused by evaporation of the alcohol in the test tube -- except that the tubes are supposedly sealed and refrigerated to prevent degradation of the samples. And what about that pesky Henry's Law that states whenever you mixed water and alcohol in a closed system, the concentration of alcohol in the water and the concentration of alcohol in the headspace is the same? A sealed test tube is a closed system.
Just a little something to think about.
The answer in Austin may very well be no and no.
An Austin defense attorney reported that his client had a blood sample taken on a No Refusal weekend. That sample was tested by the Austin Police Department's crime lab. The result came back showing his client had an alcohol concentration of .10. The defense attorney had the blood retested by the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Science in Dallas. Their test showed an alcohol concentration of .08.
What happened?
While it is true that as alcohol metabolizes in the body the alcohol concentration decreases, when blood is stored in a sealed tube there is no way for the alcohol in the blood to metabolize. In fact, it is more likely that the alcohol concentration would increase due to contamination of the blood.
First a little primer on blood testing. When a blood sample is drawn in a DWI case, the person drawing the blood typically makes two draws in two separate tubes. One tube is the "state's" tube and the other tube is there in case the defense wants to retest it. The technician in the lab will prepare two samples from the tubes for testing in a gas chromatograph. This gives us four test results. Typically the lowest result is the alcohol concentration used at trial.
In Austin, however, they average the four results to come up with an alcohol concentration. That raises questions of which blood sample is the actual sample to be used at trial. It also raises questions about the validity of the method by which APD determines alcohol concentration.
APD officials weren't concerned about the 20% discrepancy in the test results. What's a couple hundredths of a gram anyone, right?
APD claims that the differing results could have been caused by evaporation of the alcohol in the test tube -- except that the tubes are supposedly sealed and refrigerated to prevent degradation of the samples. And what about that pesky Henry's Law that states whenever you mixed water and alcohol in a closed system, the concentration of alcohol in the water and the concentration of alcohol in the headspace is the same? A sealed test tube is a closed system.
Just a little something to think about.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
When is a horse a motor vehicle?
In the State of Texas, a motorist commits the offense of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle in a public place.
Motor vehicle is defined in the Texas Penal Code as "a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks."
Recently in Austin, two men were arrested for DWI when police discovered they were riding a horse and a mule down Sixth Street (perfectly legal in Austin) while drunk. While it is pretty clear from the video that at least one of the men is not, shall we say, in complete control of his faculties, did they commit a criminal offense?
While the definition of motor vehicle in Texas is quite broad in scope, a horse or a mule is not "a device." There's also the issue of whether or not a motor vehicle must have a motor. To claim that a horse is a motor vehicle is absurd given the principle that every word in a statute means something.
So, the Austin Police Department charged two individuals with a crime they didn't commit and that the state can never prove, just to get some publicity. It would seem that if anyone is charged with a criminal offense it should be the police officers who should be charged with official oppression for subjecting an individual to an arrest that the officer knew was unlawful.
Motor vehicle is defined in the Texas Penal Code as "a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks."
Recently in Austin, two men were arrested for DWI when police discovered they were riding a horse and a mule down Sixth Street (perfectly legal in Austin) while drunk. While it is pretty clear from the video that at least one of the men is not, shall we say, in complete control of his faculties, did they commit a criminal offense?
While the definition of motor vehicle in Texas is quite broad in scope, a horse or a mule is not "a device." There's also the issue of whether or not a motor vehicle must have a motor. To claim that a horse is a motor vehicle is absurd given the principle that every word in a statute means something.
So, the Austin Police Department charged two individuals with a crime they didn't commit and that the state can never prove, just to get some publicity. It would seem that if anyone is charged with a criminal offense it should be the police officers who should be charged with official oppression for subjecting an individual to an arrest that the officer knew was unlawful.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Austin police chief wants new DWI charge
Art Acevedo, the police chief in Austin, Texas, has gone on the record in favor of creating a new DWI offense in Texas. Mr. Acevedo would like to add the offense of driving while ability impaired (DWAI) for motorists who are below the legal limit.
In Mr. Acevedo's world, any driver with an alcohol concentration of greater than .05 but less than .08 would be charged with the new offense. I guess that would do away with that pesky little matter of a driver blowing under the limit - and a jury wondering why he's on trial.
No one has proposed what category misdemeanor the new offense would be. My guess is it would be a Class C misdemeanor - the equivalent of a traffic ticket. It would make no sense to create a new Class B drunk driving offense. Would DWAI become the new "reduced charge" for those accused of DWI?
The proposed offense makes no sense on an intellectual level. If a motorist is stopped and the officer suspects he is intoxicated, the officer will administer roadside coordination exercises. If the motorist "fails" those exercises, he would be arrested for DWI and asked to blow into the breath test machine. At what point would an officer decide to arrest for DWAI? According to the NHTSA Manual, the roadside coordination exercises are designed to detect drivers with an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher; does this mean that officers will arrest drivers who "pass" the roadside exercises? If the person "fails" the roadside exercises an officer could not arrest for DWAI, because that person would have lost the normal use of their mental or physical faculties according to NHTSA - at that point it wouldn't matter what the driver's alcohol concentration was.
And, where's the scientific evidence that a motorist's faculties are impaired to the point of being a danger at an alcohol concentration of .05? There are people driving completely sober that are a hazard on the road.
The addition of a new DWI offense will do nothing more than pull more people into the reaches of the criminal (in)justice system.
In Mr. Acevedo's world, any driver with an alcohol concentration of greater than .05 but less than .08 would be charged with the new offense. I guess that would do away with that pesky little matter of a driver blowing under the limit - and a jury wondering why he's on trial.
No one has proposed what category misdemeanor the new offense would be. My guess is it would be a Class C misdemeanor - the equivalent of a traffic ticket. It would make no sense to create a new Class B drunk driving offense. Would DWAI become the new "reduced charge" for those accused of DWI?
The proposed offense makes no sense on an intellectual level. If a motorist is stopped and the officer suspects he is intoxicated, the officer will administer roadside coordination exercises. If the motorist "fails" those exercises, he would be arrested for DWI and asked to blow into the breath test machine. At what point would an officer decide to arrest for DWAI? According to the NHTSA Manual, the roadside coordination exercises are designed to detect drivers with an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher; does this mean that officers will arrest drivers who "pass" the roadside exercises? If the person "fails" the roadside exercises an officer could not arrest for DWAI, because that person would have lost the normal use of their mental or physical faculties according to NHTSA - at that point it wouldn't matter what the driver's alcohol concentration was.
And, where's the scientific evidence that a motorist's faculties are impaired to the point of being a danger at an alcohol concentration of .05? There are people driving completely sober that are a hazard on the road.
The addition of a new DWI offense will do nothing more than pull more people into the reaches of the criminal (in)justice system.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Problems in the Austin crime lab
And that's the way it goes 'round here
I think everybody knows
That's the song they've been singin' for years
That's the way the wild wind blows.
Wild Wind Blows -- Robert Earl Keen
Travis County (Texas) officials are scrambling to find an outside expert to review procedures in the Austin Police Department's crime lab after reports surfaced of problems in at least 2,000 tests performed at the facility. Back in February Cecily Hamilton, a former DNA analyst at the lab, alleged that lab techs were performing tests for which they had no training or certification and that a supervisor helped an analyst on a competency test.
According to Ms. Hamilton, Crime Lab boss Ed Harris doesn't have a science degree, nor does he have a science background. The same holds true for his lieutenants, Bill Gibbens and Tony Arnold.
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo has called on the Texas Rangers to look into the way the crime lab operates but insists it's just a routine audit and has nothing to do with the allegations swirling around the lab.
Officials with the lab and police department chalked it up to the grumblings of a disgrunted employee and did their best to sweep the allegations under the rug. On June 23, 2010, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was notified by prosecutors that there were problems in the crime lab. Just this past week the DA held a meeting with prosecutors and told them to inform defense attorneys of the alleged problems.
So it wasn't until over four months passed that the DA was informed of the alleged problems in the crime lab -- and then it was another two weeks before defense attorneys were notified of the allegations. How many people have plead guilty based on test results obtained from the APD's crime lab while Travis County officials thumbed their fiddles?
I think everybody knows
That's the song they've been singin' for years
That's the way the wild wind blows.
Wild Wind Blows -- Robert Earl Keen
Travis County (Texas) officials are scrambling to find an outside expert to review procedures in the Austin Police Department's crime lab after reports surfaced of problems in at least 2,000 tests performed at the facility. Back in February Cecily Hamilton, a former DNA analyst at the lab, alleged that lab techs were performing tests for which they had no training or certification and that a supervisor helped an analyst on a competency test.
According to Ms. Hamilton, Crime Lab boss Ed Harris doesn't have a science degree, nor does he have a science background. The same holds true for his lieutenants, Bill Gibbens and Tony Arnold.
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo has called on the Texas Rangers to look into the way the crime lab operates but insists it's just a routine audit and has nothing to do with the allegations swirling around the lab.
Officials with the lab and police department chalked it up to the grumblings of a disgrunted employee and did their best to sweep the allegations under the rug. On June 23, 2010, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was notified by prosecutors that there were problems in the crime lab. Just this past week the DA held a meeting with prosecutors and told them to inform defense attorneys of the alleged problems.
So it wasn't until over four months passed that the DA was informed of the alleged problems in the crime lab -- and then it was another two weeks before defense attorneys were notified of the allegations. How many people have plead guilty based on test results obtained from the APD's crime lab while Travis County officials thumbed their fiddles?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Austin city council says no to vampire cops
The Austin city council passed a resolution this past week stating that it is the council's "clear will" that Austin police officers not personally take blood specimens from motorists arrested for driving while intoxicated. Council members originally sought a vote on a proposal that would have directed the city manager to block officers from collecting such samples from drivers.
After being told by the Austin City Attorney's Office that such a proposal would conflict with provisions in the criminal code authorizing officers to use all lawful means to enforce the law, the council decided to vote on the non-binding resolution.
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo told the city council that the department had abandoned plans to train officers to become licensed phlebotomists.
The new resolution directs the City Manager to develop clear guidelines by February 2010 for the collection of blood specimens by Austin police. Meanwhile, the Austin Police Department is in talks with the Travis County Sheriff's Office about training personnel at the county jail to draw blood from DWI suspects.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Austin to implement a cite and release policy
Some time ago I wrote about why the police should issue citations with a promise to appear (cite and release) for some minor offenses. According to this article from the Austin American-Statesman, the Austin Police Department will begin implementing just such a plan. Under the proposal, officers would cite and release citizens accused of driving on a suspended license, possession of less than 4 ounces of marijuana; and criminal mischief, graffiti and theft charges when the damage is less than $500.
I would let you know how the candidates for Harris County District Attorney stand on the issue, but neither has elected to provide answers to my questions.
See also:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)