Addendum to a botched drug raid

Here is a link to the actual warrant for the botched drug raid. The article states that the warrant had been uplifted to Scribd, but when you check the link you will find that the warrant has been removed from the site. I guess there is a limit to Art Acevedo's transparency when the shit hits the fan.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the police seized 18 grams of marijuana and 1.5 grams of cocaine from the house. That's right, a little more than half-an-ounce of weed and little powder.

So here's my question, did the police kick in the wrong door or did they just flat out lie in the warrant application? It's one or the other.

What say you, Joe Gamaldi?

Anatomy of a botched drug raid

Last month five officers from the Houston Police Department were injured - four were shot - in a drug raid gone incredibly wrong. At the time we were barraged with statements from HPD that the police raided the house, shot the dogs and killed the residents, Donald Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, because a confidential informant told them the couple had heroin and guns in the house.

Joe Gamaldi, the head of the local police union, claimed the police had targets on their backs and that he was sick and tired of people claiming the police were the bad guys. He even threatened to keep tabs on those who criticized the police. Woo-hoo! Over here, Joe!

The local media - never ones to look too deeply into any story involving the police - ate it up. The local media never once questioned the reliability of the informant or the rationale behind a "dynamic" entry.

But there was a problem. There was no heroin in the house. There was a small amount of marijuana and cocaine. There were rifles and shotguns, but there was no evidence that they were obtained illegally.

Neighbors and relatives told anyone who would listen that neither Mr. Tuttle nor Ms. Nicholas were involved in the drug trade. Neither had any convictions for drug activity. Neither had any convictions for violent behavior.

Police Chief Art Acevedo (doing his best to play a prevent defense) told the media that police had received a tip from an anonymous called that there were guns and heroin inside the house. Police then sent their informant into the house to get some heroin. They claim he came out with the drug and a tale the house was a veritable Wal-Mart of heroin.

If anyone knows how this shit works in Houston, it should come as no surprise that the officers went to a judge in the municipal courthouse (where the primary business of the day is traffic court) to find a judge who would sign the warrant without asking any pesky questions about probable cause or the need for a "no-knock" warrant. Needless to say, they found a very pliant judge on Lubbock Street.

Since the jump-out boys were from narcotics, no one was wearing bodycams at the time of the raid. I get it. The last thing the police want the public to see is just how much of a shit show these raids turn into.

And now an unnamed officer involved in the raid has been relieved of duty pending an investigation into the botched raid.

For those of y'all keeping score on this, the search warrant said the police believed that heroin and handguns would be found in the house. Neither were.

If anyone out there has any delusion that the police follow a rigid procedure in obtaining evidence, drafting a warrant application and discussing with a judge why the warrant needs to be served, you may now put your glasses back on and witness just how this process works.

In reality the warrant applications filed by the police - and prosecutors - are fill-in-the-blank cookie-cutter forms where the affiant cuts and pastes the basis of his suspicion. This suspicion can rarely be backed up by anything resembling articulable facts. These affidavits are presented to judges who preside over traffic courts who sign them without raising any questions.

The result is what happened in Houston last month. This should be Exhibit A in a lesson as to why the war on drugs has been an abject failure.

See also:

Blakinger, Keri, et al. "Houston police officer connected to deadly raid, shootout relieved of duty," Houston Chronicle (2/8/2019)

Reigstad, Leif, "A no-knock raid in Houston led to deaths and police injuries. Should police rethink the process?" Texas Monthly (2/12019)

Blakinger, Keri and Stephen Tucker Paulson, "Police identify powder recovered in deadly drug raid" Houston Chronicle 2/2/2019)

Dancing with the stars

Once upon a time there was a strip club on the North Freeway called Fantasy Plaza. Now, believe it or not, drugs were sold at the club and men paid dancers for sexual favors. Shocking, I know.

The city had enough after awhile and began trying to shut the club down. As an aside, the city made an agreement with some other topless clubs to allow them to violate certain rules in exchange for some donations to the city's human trafficking initiative.

Last June, officers were investigating claims that a 16-year-old had run away from home and, thanks to a fake ID, got herself a job as a dancer at Fantasy Plaza. They had to check it out.

On June 9, 2017, undercover officers entered the club and noticed a girl dancing on a side stage who met the description of the missing teen - and who matched photographs provided by her mother. One officer decided it was time to go above and beyond the call of duty to close the case.

He walked around to the other side of the club and plopped $40 on the table for a lap dance from the minor girl. At some point while she was gyrating on his pelvic region he noticed a mole on her shoulder blade which allowed him to make a positive identification.

Just let that sink in for a moment. An adult male police officer sat on a chair and allowed a minor to simulate sexual intercourse with him under the guise of trying to ID her.

Let's see, what other methods could he have used?

He could have asked the girl her name.

He could have told the girl he believed she was a runaway and needed to see some identification.

If she refused to answer he could have taken her to the station to "straighten out" the mess.

Not one of those alternatives, though, offered him the opportunity to have a minor girl grind on his lap.

Taking away freedom on the cheap

One of our worst nightmares is being wrongly arrested by the police and getting lost in the criminal (in)justice system. Thanks to a cheap drug test kit, many folks around the country have had the pleasure of being arrested, having their cars impounded, losing their jobs and their apartments for no reason at all.

Factor in the pressure some folks have to plead guilty by appointed attorneys in order to get out of jail quicker and you have a situation that should shock the conscience of our nation. Yet it's something we are more than happy to sweep under the rug.

Last week the New York Times Magazine ran an article about the real life aftermath of the cheap roadside test kit focusing on the ordeal faced by one Amy Albritton from Louisiana. Her nightmare occurred right here in my hometown, Houston.

She and a friend were stopped by officers when they were in town for her friend's job interview. One officer claimed to have found a syringe needle in the visor and a (coerced) search of the car then turned up a powder-like substance (that Ms. Albritton said was BC headache powder) and a grain of something on the floorboard.

The officer who broke open the test kit claimed it showed the grain of something was, in fact, a piece of crack cocaine. Ms. Albritton was arrested (her friend disclaimed any knowledge of the substance and, since it was her car, she took the ride downtown) and charged with possession of a controlled substance - a state jail felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

There are no established error rates for the field tests, in part because their accuracy varies so widely depending on who is using them and how. In Las Vegas, authorities re-examined a sampling of cocaine field tests conducted between 2010 and 2013 and found that 33 percent of them were false positives. Data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab system show that 21 percent of evidence that the police listed as methamphetamine after identifying it was not methamphetamine, and half of those false positives were not any kind of illegal drug at all. In one notable Florida episode, Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies produced 15 false positives for methamphetamine in the first seven months of 2014. When we examined the department’s records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result.

The next morning Ms. Albritton met with a gentlemen who told her he was her court-appointed attorney. While she claimed innocence, he told her that the prosecutor would offer her 45 days (under a provision of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that allows certain felonies to be punished as misdemeanors) and that she would be in jail for much longer if she actually chose to fight her case. She gave in and pled guilty before Judge Vanessa Velasquez.

A later test of the substances by the Houston Police Department Crime Lab (who apparently tested substances from closed cases on a regular basis but never notified anyone of the results - among other sins that have been documented previously) showed that the substance in question was not crack cocaine. The tests also showed that there was nothing in the needle and that the powdery substance was BC powder.

All of this was a day late and a dollar short for Ms. Albritton who lost her job and was now hamstrung with a felony conviction due to her wrongful arrest.

Now, if we know that these kits are inherently unreliable and that their accuracy is affected by light and temperature and other environmental factors, why do we allow these tests to be the basis of criminal charges that have serious ramifications for the people involved? Why aren't we waiting for the results of actual lab tests before we file charges against someone? Why are we holding folks in jail for non-violent drug offenses simply because they can't afford to post a bond? And why the fuck are attorneys pressuring their "clients" to plead guilty without the benefit of a lab report?

Field tests provide quick answers. But if those answers and confessions cannot be trusted, Charles McClelland, the former Houston police chief, says, officers should not be using them. During an interview in March, McClelland said that if he had known of the false positives Houston’s officers were generating, he would have ordered a halt to all field testing departmentwide. Police officers are not chemists, McClelland said. “Officers shouldn’t collect and test their own evidence, period. I don’t care whether that’s cocaine, blood, hair.”

Another question, posed by former Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland, is why do we allow the folks who want to arrest someone to run the test that determines if someone gets arrested? Shouldn't that testing be done by someone who is (nominally) not a part of the police department?

Yet another question is why we continue to charge people who possess trace amounts of drugs with felony offenses?

This is reality for a sizable portion of the population yet you will never hear a politician talking about how innocent people get caught up in our criminal (in)justice system. You will never hear then talk about the gross inequities in how different people are treated. Instead you will hear nothing but the common platitudes of those who claim to be tough on crime in order to please white suburbanites whose idea of a colorblind society is an all-white neighborhood.

Happy Fourth (or not)

Yesterday the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association carried on a tradition born four years ago with the annual reading of the Declaration of Independence outside the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center.

At the same time as the reading in Houston, there were readings at 73 other courthouses in Texas.

The reading is a powerful reminder of what the Fourth of July is all about and why we do what we do. It's an event that pulls us together and gives us a little kick in the ass to motivate us. It's also a stark reminder of how different things were 239 years ago.

Of course I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it was a roomful of wealthy, white landowners who signed the document and their promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness didn't apply to women, the poor or those held in bondage.

A special shout out goes to John Raley who worked for years - for free - to obtain the release of Michael Morton. There is no higher reward in this profession than seeing an innocent man walk out of prison.

HCCLA President Carmen Roe opens the ceremony.

Robb Fickman delivers the keynote address.

But it's not all fun and games for down here in Houston we are in the midst of (yet) another No Refusal Weekend. The other day Mayor Annise Parker and the police got in front of the media and explained why we just need to pretend that the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist on Fourth of July weekend.

The anecdotes are horrific. There is nothing amusing or fun about folks dying in a car accident because someone was intoxicated. But there is also nothing to celebrate about making a mockery of what this holiday is all about. The Founding Fathers put their lives on the line by signing a document that laid out the abuses committed by the British government. Our own elected officials pat themselves on the back for conspiring to violate the Bill of Rights.

An interesting side note to all of this was former Harris County prosecutor (and current Montgomery County prosecutor) Warren Diepraam's appearing on KUHF's Houston Matters yesterday in which he told the radio audience that there was nothing wrong with having a drink or two with dinner and then getting in the car and driving home. I would like to hear Mr. Diepraam square that statement with the fact that once an officer smells alcohol on a driver's breath - and once that driver admits to having had a "couple" of drinks - that the investigation is over and someone's going to jail.

The other day while I was watching the US play Belgium (and apparently forget that the object of the game is to score a goal), I met a police officer from New Zealand who was here on vacation. He was amazed at how different the rules under which the police operate are. In New Zealand, for instance, an officer can pull any motorist over at any time to test them to see if they are legally intoxicated. No reasonable suspicion, no probable cause. No nothing. Get in your car to leave the bar and you just might be the unlucky soul who gets picked to be tested.

That's not a system under which I wish to live. But that's where we are headed with drunk driving laws. When we demonize one crime, we make it that much easier to take away the rights of folks accused of other crimes. Is that how we want to celebrate Independence Day?

288 and counting...

The Houston Police Department is on a 288-0 win streak. There have been 288 officer shootings without a single indictment since Arthur Charbonneau shot an unarmed teenager to death in a closet back in 2004.

From 2008 to 2012 there were over a hundred officer shootings - and a quarter of the civilians fired at were unarmed. The victims of the Houston Police Department include a double-amputee in a wheelchair and a Navy veteran suffering from a mental illness.

Making matters worse for the citizenry is the lack of dashboard cameras in the vast majority of HPD patrol cars. The lack of cameras means that there is almost never a video record of a police shooting in Houston.

Police Chief Charles McClelland has defended his officers going so far as to say that deadly force is justified even if the suspect is unarmed. During the five year period investigated by The Houston Chronicle, the department found only one of 636 officer shootings (including shooting animals and unintentional firings) was not justified.

Yes, officers are faced with making split-second decisions about how to handle a particular suspect. But the same laws that govern our behavior are, at least in theory, the same laws that govern police officers. A police officer's job is to protect and defend the citizens of their city - not to declare war on part of the population. While it is not justified for a citizen to walk down the street and shoot at someone else just because he thinks that other person might be carrying a weapon, police officers in Houston seem to have carte blanche to do just that.

The matter isn't helped by the callous attitude of the Harris County District Attorney's Office when it comes to police shootings. The attitude of prosecutors is that the police wear white hats while everyone else wears a black (or grey) hat. While prosecutors will always refer to complaining witnesses as "my victim," when a civilian is on the wrong side of a police shooting the focus turns to "my officer."

If the targets of police shootings weren't overwhelmingly black, brown or poor maybe there's be a different attitude on the part of prosecutors and the public. If the victims of police shootings lived in better neighborhoods and looked more like judges and prosecutors, maybe the attitude would change.

Warriors for a new tomorrow

No, that's not an armed invasion of the City of Houston. It's just the latest example of the increasing militarization of the police. There is no reason a Houston police officer should be decked out in full camouflage. He's not a soldier, he is a peace officer.

The mission of a police department is to protect and serve the citizenry. It's not to dress up like a soldier and carry an automatic rifle. It's not to get behind the wheel of an armored personnel carrier. These devices and artifices serve only to separate the police more and more from the rest of us.

As I drove around the city this morning listening to the Diane Rehm show. She and her guests were discussing the latest alleged (unspecified) terrorist plot. As usual, none of Ms. Rehm's guests were from outside the mainstream of opinion. The guests might tilt a little bit to the left or right but there is never anyone on the air who would argue that the questions missed the point.

While we have seen this same scenario played out many times before, not one guest on the show cast any skepticism about the veracity of the government's claims that they had uncovered information from listening to phone calls about the alleged plot. The very notion that the Obama administration would create an alleged terror threat out of whole cloth to distract attention from the NSA's internal surveillance programs was ridiculed by Ms. Rehm and her guests.

But most disturbing was the idea that, in a digital world, we need to come to the realization that the government is going to listen in to our phone calls, read our e-mails and peruse our internet searches. Not one guest questioned the premise that our privacy rights and civil liberties need to suffer in order for Big Brother to protect us.

If you follow their logic, the Fourth Amendment is but a quaint historical relic treasured by those of us who refuse to accept the new reality.

As an aside, none of the guests questioned the right of the United States to fly unmanned drones through the air space of a sovereign nation and fire missiles at their citizens. I guess murder is murder, unless the victim speaks a different language and practices a different set of superstitious rituals - but that's an argument for another day.

And as I listened to the conversation my mind kept being drawn back to the picture of HPD officers dressed in full camouflage carrying automatic rifles walking down a city street. Somewhere along the way we got so far off-track that most of us don't even think twice about the implications of turning the police into a paramilitary squad.

Criminalizing the homeless

Sec. 39-2. - Disturbing or removing contents of containers.

(a)

It is unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly handle, scavenge from, disturb, or remove any contents of any bin, bag, or other container that has been placed for collection of garbage, trash or recyclable materials at the designated location for pickup by the department, or for pickup by any other public or private collection service.

(b)

It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the accused is the person who placed or caused the bin, bag or container to be placed for collection or that the accused is an agent or employee of the city.

That's the text of a Houston city ordinance that prohibits folks from digging around in someone else's trash. Now we can forget for a second that when I put something in my trash can I'm throwing it out because I don't want or need it anymore. I've put out old stuff with our recycling and there are times it's gone before I even go to bed.

The courts have used that argument to allow the police to dig through your trash can when they're looking for  something they can use against you. And it was so nice of the city council to give a blanket defense to the police. Notice that nowhere in the ordinance does it state that the agent or employee of the city has to be carrying out the duties of his or her job. Nope. It's enough that they get a paycheck signed by the City Controller every other week.

This is statute that James Kelly violated. Mr. Kelly is homeless. He was scavenging for food. Someone with the police department made the decision that what Mr. Kelly really needed was a ticket that calls for a fine between $50 and $2,000. Because that'll really solve the problem.

In response to public outcry about ticketing a homeless man for dumpster diving, city officials pointed out that the prohibition on dumpster diving is on the books (and, therefore, just had to be enforced because we just can't have laws on the books that we're not arresting or citing people for breaking). Well that's all well and good, Annise Parker.

Ray Hunt, president of the Houston Police Officers' Union, said tickets for violations of the ordinance are written only in response to complaints that garbage has been removed and left outside of trash containers. 

"I know on the face of it, it sounds very cruel," the union leader said, stressing that most police officers would not cite someone for simply taking food from a dumpster.

The homeless get in the way. They don't dress nicely. They don't look clean. They're always hustling for something or the other. They sleep all over the place. Having homeless folks on the streets is a cold splash of water in the face of those who want to promote Houston as a world-class city.

But, they're there. Some of them are mentally ill. Some of them are drug addicts. Some of them were living paycheck-to-paycheck when they lost their job. Instead of criminalizing their behavior and trying to sweep them under the rug, why don't we do something to combat the growing number of homeless folks sleeping out on the streets every night?

But doing something to help doesn't mean issuing tickets for those rummaging through the trash looking for something to eat just because there's an ordinance on the books that says you can do it. We need to be asking ourselves what are the economic and social conditions that lead to homelessness - not devising schemes to hide them away in the corners so that no one knows they're around.

Smile! You're on camera

According to Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland, up to 100 officers will be wearing miniature cameras attached to their glasses or articles of clothing this coming summer.

Now just keep in mind that the purpose of the cameras isn't to make the populace safer. The purpose of the cameras seems to be to defend officers against charges of abuse or use of excessive force. According to the chief, "This is something that can make a difference when officers are complained on."

Well, Mr. McClelland, there is already a device out there that can show the world whether or not an officer acted in an appropriate manner. It's called a cell phone and citizens around the country have used them to record officers behaving badly. And, as a result, officers have arrested folks who weren't breaking the law and have seized property from individuals without a showing that the property was used in the commission of a crime.

I suppose if the cameras are assigned to the 100 officers who have received the most citizen complaints they may indeed act as a deterrent to the officers. Knowing they are on camera might just make an officer think twice before engaging in questionable conduct.

"It offers a defense to the officer's conduct when he's unjustly accused of something when there are no other witnesses or unbiased witnesses," said Larry Karson, an assistant professor of criminal justice at University of Houston-Downtown.

Of course comments like those attributed to Mr. Karson raise the question of what exactly does a degree in criminal justice provide the budding student. I feel reasonably certain in saying that it certainly doesn't provide the perspective of those who are either charged with criminal conduct or those who defend them.

And with the vapid insight of Mr. Karson, students and parents ought to question where that tuition money is going.

Apparently in Mr. Karson's world, those who complain of police misconduct are biased witnesses while the officers themselves just get up there and recite the facts. His bias in favor of those who wear shiny badges and carry deadly weapons must blind him to the reality that the police do trample the rights of the citizenry on a daily basis and get away with it because folks like Mr. Karson refuse to believe that officers lie.

As to these recordings, will there be a master list of which officers were wearing cameras on each particular day? How long will the recordings be kept? Will defense attorneys be notified if there are recordings captured by these cameras of activity involving their clients? Will recordings that exonerate a defendant be provided to defense counsel? When will officers be required to turn on the cameras? When will they be allowed to turn them off? Will there be a way to monitor the recordings so that exculpatory evidence isn't destroyed?

In the meantime, keep those cell phones handy. You never know when that recording could come in handy.

HPD's dirty little ticket secret

We all know that it's hard to win in traffic court. The officer has his shiny gadget that tells him how fast you may or may not have been driving - a readout that no one but him ever sees. And what about when he asks you for your driver's license and insurance? Chances are there's no one else in the car to contradict a word he says.

As far as the prosecutor and cashier judge are concerned he's got you on three grounds. Maybe you've got your insurance card to prove you had coverage at the time of the stop. Okay, that's one for you.

But what about that driver's license. There's no question it was valid at the time of the stop. But were you carrying it with you? Remember, it's your word against his.

Maybe they offer to dismiss the no driver's license charge if you take a deferred on the speeding case. Or maybe they offer you deferred on one and defensive driving on the other. All works out the same in the end - the city gets what it wants and you get screwed.

Happens every day in every court in the Municipal Courthouse.

But now there's a little twist.

What if the police officer has already preset his ticket-writing computer to issue citations for speeding, no insurance and no driver's license? Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Unfortunately,  that's exactly what's been happening in Houston.

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, Shirley Simmons was pulled over for speeding in a school zone near her grandson's school. What she didn't realize at the time was that the officer also cited her for failing to display a driver's license and for not having proof of insurance.

When she got home, put on her glasses and closely read the ticket, she discovered two incorrect charges: failure to display a valid Texas driver's license and lack of insurance. She went to two nearby Houston Police Department stations, but was directed to the traffic division downtown. 

After a supervisor spoke with her and the officer, the two extra violations were removed. She still must go to court later this month for driving 5 miles-per-hour over the limit. But Simmons, a disabled 61-year-old grandmother, wonders if officers are pre-setting tickets with violations in certain communities, like the crossroads of Sunnyside and South Acres, where she was stopped.

There is no doubt that there are a great number of drivers in our fair city who don't have a valid driver's license or insurance. I've had quite a few as clients of mine. But until Sgt. Robert Gonzales opened up his mouth without thinking, I had no idea that it was standard practice to have certain charges pre-set into the computer to save time.

Of course Sgt. Gonzales doesn't see it as a problem. And why should he? The traffic division is a fundraising unit for the City of Houston. The police aren't trained to look at people as being innocent unless proven otherwise. That kind of thinking is anathema to a police officer.

The problem, Sgt. Gonzales, is that no ticket spit out of a ticket-writing computer can be trusted anymore. We don't know if those charges were pre-set defaults or violations the officer actually observed. Hell, we don't even know if the ticket really tells us why the driver was stopped in the first place.

If a motorist is cited for speeding, failure to display a driver's license and not having proof of insurance - but they come to court with a valid driver's license and insurance card, wouldn't it be more likely that the motorist is being truthful when he says he wasn't speeding?

But, in a land in which judges are happy to sign check-the-box and fill-in-the-blank search warrant forms authorizing forcible blood draws in DWI cases, why should it surprise us that the police have rigged the ticket-writing computers?

And why, by the way, wasn't the officer who issued the ticket to Ms. Simmons not charged with filing a false government document? He pre-set the information. He knew it was pre-set. He printed out the ticket and handed it to Ms. Simmons. Then he filed a copy with the court.

Oh, but it was an accident. He didn't mean to do it. He was really sorry about it. Not that he did anything wrong, though.

Police kill double-amputee over a pen

He lost his right leg and right arm when he was hit by a train. He was confined to a wheelchair. He lived in a group home. He had some mental issues - some serious mental issues.

He got upset early the other morning because his caregiver wouldn't give him a cigarette. Naturally when he got upset someone called the police. And that's where things went wrong. Bad wrong.

Brian Claunch was waving a pen when the police arrived. Instead of determining whether Mr. Claunch was in need of medical attention the police escalated the situation and, when it was all over, Mr. Claunch was dead - in his wheelchair. Holding a pen.

It was bad enough when officers in Montgomery County managed to shoot a paraplegic to death in the cab of his truck, but it would appear that the good men of the Houston Police Department couldn't allow themselves to be outdone by their colleagues to the north.

I understand that the first rule of policing is to make it home safely at the end of the shift. But I also understand that a man waving a pen in a wheelchair is not a target worthy of hot lead in his chest.

The officer who killed Mr. Claunch claimed he was worried about his partner's safety. Really? Let's see. Mr. Claunch was missing an arm. He was waving a pen in one hand. His only hand. Just how was anyone in any danger?

The mind just wanders aimlessly trying to get a head around just what was going on in that home on Saturday morning. Whoever called 911 was aware that Mr. Claunch was emotionally disturbed. The caller was aware that he needed help - not a bullet.

The police are not equipped to handled mentally disturbed individuals. Nothing good ever comes of it. The mission of the police is to fight, and prevent, crime, not to provide mental health care. The police are used to be in charge. When an officer asks you to jump, the correct response is not why.

But, time and time again, the police find themselves dealing with someone who isn't in his or her right mind. A person who isn't going to ask how high; a person who either doesn't understand the question or has no way of answering it in a way that an officer wants.

These situations invariably end with someone being tased or shot because the officers involved were woefully unprepared or untrained to deal with the situation.

It's not Mr. Claunch's fault his brain isn't wired like ours. But he needed treatment and counseling, not the death penalty.

Another lethal shot from a non-lethal device

A man who died after he was stunned with a Taser by a Houston police officer this weekend had a drug addiction and lengthy criminal history, according to relatives.

And there you have it. Straight out of the police playbook after a suspect somehow ends up dead.

Another man tased. Another man dead without explanation.

The taser was promoted as nonlethal option for the police to use to control an unruly person. Of course the original idea was for the police to start off using the least amount of force and only escalate if necessary.

But, being that the first rule of policing is to make it home safely after the shift is over, it's more common for the police to start at the top of the force ladder and work their way down. That means instead of the taser being used as a last resort before the service revolver comes out, it becomes the default first mode of control.

Unfortunately not everyone is suited to be shot with a jolt of electricity. And the person on the firing end of the taser has no idea whether the person he's aiming it is a heart failure waiting to happen. But we certainly can't let folks go around questioning whether the police overreacted by firing a taser when a lesser alternative was available.

Nope. It can't be the fault of the guy with the badge. It must be the dead guy's fault. So out comes the dirt after the fact. Nevermind that none of the officers on the scene had any idea that Denis Chabot was an addict or that he had a criminal background.

The purpose of the statement at the beginning of this post is to trash Mr. Chabot so that the public doesn't start questioning the use of the taser. You don't want someone poking their nose around asking why the police were firing a taser running along the freeway. You don't want someone wondering why no one called medical personnel if Mr. Chabot seemed to be under the influence of something.

Why an officer decided to fire his taser at Mr. Chabot we will never know. All we know is that Mr. Chabot is dead. Needlessly.

We're the police and we're here to help

He was acting strangely. His hair was wet. His eyes were "big." He told the clerk at the hotel he needed help.  He wouldn't come in and he wouldn't leave.

The clerk was worried. She called 911.

Paramedics from the Houston Fire Department arrived shortly thereafter. He refused their help. Then the police officers arrived. We're told he began to fight.

So one officer decided it was a good idea to pull out his Taser to subdue the man. Nevermind that he wasn't accused of any crime. He clearly needed help. But one man in blue thought the best way to help him was to shoot him with a Taser and send a jolt of electricity through his body.

Nobody refuses an offer of help from a paramedic - and lives to tell the tale.

By now you should have guessed what happened to our protagonist. He was taken to a nearby hospital where he died.

The Taser has been promoted as a way of avoiding the use of deadly force. Instead of pulling out a gun and shooting a person with a live bullet, the officer can incapacitate that person with a strong jolt of electricity. There is, admittedly, the one little complication that strong jolts of electricity and heart conditions don't usually end well. And the corollary that at the time the officer pulls the trigger on the Taser he doesn't know whether the target of his less-than-lethal show of force has a heart condition.

We don't know if the victim had a heart condition before he was tased. What we do know is that he needed some type of help - either medical or psychological. He didn't need to be involved in a confrontation with the police.

The police are taught to fight crime and, if necessary, to subdue suspects. They aren't trained mental health professionals. Their's is a very different tool kit. You see, police officers don't like it when someone tells them no. An officer is used to having people answer "how high?" when asked to jump. Any other response is considered a provocation.

Is it an ego thing? A macho thing? Or is it what happens when you give a man a gun and a badge and turn him loose?

Now a man is dead for no reason.

The verdict was neither right nor wrong

A jury in Harris County found former Houston police officer Andrew Blomberg not guilty of official oppression in the beating of teenager Chad Holley back in 2010. Reaction to the verdict has been all over the map.

Local black leaders decried the acquittal equating it to racism. Police officers were happy as the acquittal makes it less likely that officers will face reprisals for excessive use of force. Mayor Annise Parker stated that while she didn't agree with the verdict she respected it.

“I certainly don’t agree with the verdict, and I support the chief of police in his actions in relation to these officers,” Parker said at her regularly scheduled press conference this morning. “They will never again be Houston police officers whatever the verdict is in the criminal trial.”

Over at the defense bar reactions were mixed. There are those who said the jury got it wrong and others who supported the verdict and cast aspersions on the integrity of those who dared question the jury.

I wasn't in the courtroom and I don't know what evidence the jurors heard and saw. I know what I think - but that doesn't really count for much. I also know that this debate on whether the jurors got it right or wrong is completely off-base. You see, verdicts aren't right and verdicts aren't wrong; they just are.

“They just said to African Americans, they just said black people, that white people can do whatever they want and get away with it,” Quanell shouted outside the courtroom as other activists screamed expletives. “They just sent a message that our lives don’t mean a damn thing.”

The same attorneys who think the jury got it right are the same ones who think another jury got it wrong when they convicted someone's client; and vice versa. When we debate whether the jury was right or wrong our opinions are colored by what we've read or heard about the case long before it went to trial. We base our opinions on our own experiences and through the prism of our own ideologies.

A juror has to make his decision based upon what he sees or hears in the courtroom. What that juror is seeing isn't reality - it's an artificial construct built by two forces in opposition to one another. That juror is going to be someone who hasn't followed a case too closely so he, presumably, doesn't sit down in the jury box with a prejudice, or a bias, toward one side or the other.

The six jurors in the Blomberg case did their civic duty, and, for that, I'm very appreciative. But they didn't get anything right. And they didn't get anything wrong. They simply made a decision.

And that's what it is.

Searching for a reason (any reason)...

Of course something had to be done. There was a fight. There were the police. We can't possibly expect the police to climb back in their cars and leave without making the trip worth it, can we? I mean, it's not their fault the fight was over before they got there.

So the police did what the police do. They lined up a bunch of students at Pershing Middle School against a wall and searched them. I'm guessing this wouldn't have happened at Bellaire High or Memorial High. For, you see, the students who were searched at Pershing were black.

And, since they were black, you just know someone had to be carrying a weapon. Or drugs. Or something else kids aren't supposed to be walking around with. Oh, wait, none of the kids had anything illegal on them. Fancy that.

I guess down on the southwest side of town we don't concern ourselves with such archaic concepts as reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Just line 'em up and search 'em. If we find something we'll fill in the blanks on our report.

Somewhere along the line we've forgotten what kids do. Kids get into fights. It happens. It happened when I was in school, it happened when my dad was in school and it'll happen while my girls are in school. But this is about more than schools overreacting and using law enforcement to handle their disciplinary matters. Now we've added race to the mix.

There was no reason to line those kids up against a wall. There was no reason to search them. Standing around and watching a fight (if that's what the kids were doing) isn't a crime. There's nothing about the act of standing around that should elicit reasonable suspicion from the folks who carry guns and drive cars with noisemakers and strobe lights on them. Nothing, that is, except for the fact that the kids were black.

We've seen the statistics from the NYPD's stop and frisk program. We know that the vast majority of the folks subjected to being groped by the police were black and latino.

If you think that a black teenager living in the Third Ward or the Fifth Ward or in Southwest Houston has the same right to be left alone by the police as a white guy living in River Oaks, Memorial or the Heights, well, you're sadly delusional.

It doesn't raise any suspicions if the police see a couple of white guys chatting on the sidewalk or in a parking lot. But, change their skin color and there's a whole world of difference.

And what message are we sending our young people? You want them to believe we're living in a colorblind society where we are all treated equally under the law? If that's what you want, then explain to me how subjecting black teens to being searched by the police without cause promotes that message?

And who is the genius that thought this was a good idea? Someone had to suggest it. At least one of those officers had no qualms about searching the kids without reason. At least one of those officers thought he was doing his duty in serving the people of Houston by subjecting those kids to a search.

Harris County's runaway grand jury: a blawgosphere summary

On Monday morning, two high-level prosecutors in the Harris County District Attorney's Office will appear in the 185th Judicial District Court for a show cause hearing to determine whether they should be held in contempt of court for obtaining transcripts of grand jury testimony in the HPD Batmobile investigation.

Here are a few posts from around the blawgosphere regarding the collision between the runaway grand jury and the HCDAO so y'all can get a feel for what's been going down:

"My prediction for Monday: delay of game," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 4, 2011)

"The BAT van show-cause order," Defending People (Nov. 2, 2011)

"It's the coverup that gets you: BAT van edition," Grits for Breakfast (Nov. 2, 2011)

"Judge calls top prosecutors on the carpet," The Defense Rests (Nov. 2, 2011)

"An interesting docket entry," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 1, 2011)

"Live by the hatchet, die by the hatchet," Defending People (Nov. 1, 2011)

"The official investigation has begun," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 27, 2011)

"Houston DWI 'BAT' vans - a timeline," Defending People (Oct. 27, 2011)

"What you say can be used..." Sustained (Oct. 27, 2011)

"The plot thickens," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"A rat in a trap," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"What's that: a "runaway" grand jury!," Criminal Jurisdiction (Oct. 25, 2011)

"Grand jury hysteria," Texas Criminal Defender (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Runaway jury," The Defense Rests (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Pat Lykos' star chamber rebels," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 21, 2011)

Police union targets city official who spoke out against police brutality

It would seem that Houston city councilwoman Jolanda Jones is paying the price for speaking out against the police. Ms. Jones has spoken out repeatedly about the problem of police brutality in Houston. She also raised concerns about the way the department operated its crime lab.

Now the Houston Police Officer's Union is striking back. Union vice president Ray Hunt has sent a letter to Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos asking her office to look into whether or not Ms. Jones was practicing law without a licence last month.

This isn't the first time Mr. Hunt has been involved in lodging a complaint against Ms. Jones. He is the one who pointed out that Ms. Jones put her city office phone number on her business card. He alleged that she was using city resources to operate her private law firm. Ms. Jones was cleared of those charges when the DA's office announced there wasn't enough evidence to prove any wrongdoing.

The latest allegations stem from two legal documents signed by Ms. Jones after her license to practice law had been suspended for her failure to pay her bar dues and occupational taxes on time.

This fight isn't about Ms. Jones' ethics. This fight is about whether or not the city is going to turn a blind eye to police brutality. Earlier this year I sat with Ms. Jones at a forum on police brutality. She was the only elected city official to appear at the town hall meeting. Her willingness to speak out in such a forum spoke volumes.

Mr. Hunt and his group are involved in the classic misdirection play. Instead of focusing on the issue of police brutality, Mr. Hunt would rather throw mud at Ms. Jones in an attempt to discredit her. If you can't debate the issue on the merits, go for the dirt.

The problem with Mr. Hunt's tactics is that the cat is out of the bag now. We've seen the videos. We know that  the police beat suspects for no reason. They do it because they can and because they think they can get away with it. And for a long time they did. The city turned a blind eye to the problem - as long as it could be made to go away.

Mr. Hunt is playing the public like a little child. We all know the punishment for contempt of cop. I've had clients who have been punched, kicked or tased multiple times. If there was no video camera or eyewitness willing to testify, it was just a perp's word against a police officer. And guess who judges and juries believed.

Maybe Ms. Jones has skirted the rules. Maybe she hasn't acted ethically. Maybe she did practice law without a valid license. Those are issues with which Ms. Jones must deal. But none of that changes the fact that the police beat suspects and Ms. Jones called them out on it.

Don't fall for the misdirection play. Keep your eye on the ball.

Police look to change uniforms

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Police Department is looking to retire its light blue over dark blue uniform and to replace it with a more militaristic style "body dress uniform" assembly in navy blue.

Apparently there is a need for the force to use more rugged military-style uniforms when "working" the streets.

"The younger officers wanted a little more tactical, user-friendly uniform for running and tackling people. You don't go to a fight in a suit. If you're going to have to engage someone, chase someone, why not wear clothing more appropriate for the situation?" -- Gary Blankinship, President, Houston Police Officers' Union

That's just what we need in Houston, a bunch of armed men dressed like paramilitary members running and tackling people on the street. Ladies and gentlemen, the illusion is over. The police aren't out there to protect the citizenry, they're out there to assault the citizenry.

Driving while black remains a reality in Houston

New data released by the Houston Police Department shows that black motorists are more likely to be stopped by police than any other ethnic group in the city. While blacks make up 23% of the city's population, they made up 33% of all traffic stops in 2010. Latinos, who make up 44% of the city's population, made up 32% of all traffic stops. White motorists accounted for 30% of the stops.

According to the Houston Chronicle, "experts" discount driving while black as being the cause of the disparity.

Clete Snell, who chairs the criminal justice department at the University of Houston-Downtown, said many minority residents feel they have been singled out because of the number of stops in their neighborhoods. 

"Police tend to patrol more frequently in African-American neighborhoods, and in minority neighborhoods in general, and tend to make more stops in minority neighborhoods,“ Snell said.

Apparently Mr. Snell is not concerned that there are a disproportionate share of blacks in the criminal justice system and that the vast majority of defendants who cannot afford to post a bond tend to be black or Latino.

Surprisingly enough, Gary Blankinship, the head of the Houston Police Officer's Union, denies the existence of racial profiling and former HPD Chief, and current city councilmember, C.O. Bradford blames it on a few "bad apples."

Racial profiling, like police brutality, is not an individualized phenomenon. It is bred into the culture of police departments all across this country. Police brutality comes from a culture in which the questioning of "authority" is considered a sign of disrespect. Maybe that's how it works at the police station -- but that ain't reality on the street. But police culture doesn't account for such subtleties.

Racial profiling has always played a role in police work - going back to the days of Jim Crow when the police were used to enforce the laws of segregation. The primary role of the police was to keep whites and blacks separate, or, more accurately, to keep blacks on "their side" of town. That ethos still holds true today as large swaths of our cities and towns are segregated.

Until we examine the role that law enforcement has played in preserving inequality in this country, police brutality and racial profiling will continue to endure - no matter how much sensitivity and diversity training we require of the boys in blue.

Holy piece of junk, Batman!

There were some folks who thought I was a bit off the mark when I dared to criticize HPD's BATmobiles. Turns out I was right.

We've got vans with wiring problems that renders the breath test machines inoperable. The air conditioning doesn't work in one van and that's not good for a machine that's temperature sensitive. Yep, that's how we take care of our "instruments" here in Space City.



The police won't even acknowledge the problems to the Harris County District Attorney's Office -- of course that cat's out the bag by now. Heaven forbid folks find out that the money used to purchase and maintain (sort of) the BATmobiles might as well have been used to light the charcoal in the grill.

The lieutenant was worried about having to, quote, "explain what these problems can do to pending court cases."


"The lieutenant may think there's a problem, but I don't see that there's a problem," Driskell said.


And the DA's office has never been told of any of the maintenance problems we've uncovered.

"It's not that we're trying to hide it, but I don't see a need in telling them that. If they wanna know that, we'd be glad to share that information," Driskell said.

It's not about getting drunks off the streets. It's about raking in that grant money. We're churning and burning, baby, just send the check. The DPS is in on the scam, too, charging motorists $3,000 for a DWI conviction. Budget shortfalls -- let's just increase the user fees on our roadways. Just think of all that fine money and surcharge payments.

But it's all right because it's all in the name of public safety. Isn't it?