Video available below.

A short documentary recently released by FiveThirtyEight as part of their Signals series highlights some of the injustices faced by police who go against the grain to expose misconduct.

“Crime By The Numbers,” a short documentary directed by Don Argott for FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films’ Signals series, tells the story of Adrian Schoolcraft. Schoolcraft, as a New York Police Department officer, blew the whistle on the NYPD’s abuse and misuse of CompStat, a system to track crime trends in New York City.

The documentary also touches on how advanced data analytics can be used to violate privacy rights.

Video available below:

Video available below. (h/t Cops Caught On Tape)

Police accountability blog Cops Caught On Tape has released a video montage of recent incidents where law enforcement agents have planted drugs and other evidence in order to obtain or bolster arrests.

The description of the video, which was uploaded to YouTube on Sunday afternoon, has the following disclaimer:

Though most of the police featured in this video have either quit, been fired, arrested or have admitted their crimes, all of the police featured in the video are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whereas police automatically presume we are guilty until proven innocent.

The video is available below:

In addition to breaking news brought to you at TruthVoice, this publication recommends following Cops Caught On Tape for insightful coverage of police misconduct and abuse.

A Roscoe woman who was falsely detained last year by Donora police on a warrant seeking the arrest of a man is suing the Borough of Donora, the local police chief and the officer who brought her to the station that day.

In the five-count lawsuit filed Friday in Washington County Court, attorney Dennis Popojas alleges that Donora police officer Robert Dorcon and Chief James Brice violated Kerri Hoover’s civil rights to due process by bringing her in on the warrant Feb. 20, 2014.

Brice was named in the lawsuit because his position carries a responsibility to train officers in the execution of arrest warrants, Popojas said.

Dorcon stopped her car at 9:15 a.m. and informed her that he had a warrant for her arrest.

The bench warrant signed in December 2013 by District Judge Mark Wilson sought Kerry Hoover of Coal Center, the plaintiff’s cousin, for failure to appear in court on a traffic violation, and it described the suspect as a 39-year-old man who is 6 feet tall and weighed 250 pounds, the record states.

“There are wild disparities between the description laid out in the warrant and the person, my client, who was picked up that day,” Popojas said.

Kerri Hoover, 27, insisted to Dorcon she didn’t have an arrest record and was told by Brice he “knew how to read a warrant,” the lawsuit alleges.

It further claimed Brice didn’t verify her identity or review Dorcon’s actions that day.

She eventually was released 2 1/2 hours later to her father.

“Chief Brice knew or should have known that the plaintiff’s arrest was clearly erroneous as he failed to match the fugitive’s description in any appreciable way except for the last name,” Popojas said in the lawsuit.

Popojas notified Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in August of his client’s intention to sue over the error. Pennsylvania law requires a notice be filed with the attorney general when someone plans to sue over such incidents.

Donora Police Department was also notified of Kerri Hoover’s decision to sue and has since tried to intimidate her and “persuade the plaintiff from taking action,” the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit also alleges the arrest intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Kerri Hoover and borough police officers need to be trained on how to execute arrest warrants.

Donora’s solicitor, Justin Walsh, could not be reached Friday.

Written by Francesco Sacco and Scott Beveridge, staff writers for the Observer-Reporter

SANFORD, N.C. — Lee County Sheriff Tracy Carter is being accused of unlawfully arresting a man who tried to serve him with a subpoena for a federal lawsuit that alleges excessive force.

Robert Terry Wade III, 71, was tasked with delivering the subpoena two weeks ago, and stated in an affidavit that Carter responded to him with shouting and hostility when he tried to serve the documents. Wade claims Carter summoned the police and prevented him from leaving until they arrived.

“I tried to leave, but Sheriff Carter came and positioned himself behind my truck and blocked me in so that it was impossible for me to leave without coming into contact with him.”

— Robert Wade III

When the police arrived, the affidavit says Carter ordered officers to arrest Wade, who was charged with trespassing and possessing a concealed weapon after Wade notified them that he kept a gun in his vehicle.

Court documents show Carter’s attorneys responded to the incident by claiming that Wade should have served the documents directly to them instead.

In response to the incident, US District Judge Terrence Boyle approved a restraining order filed against Carter, which states he is “restrained and enjoined from interfering in any way with [the plaintiff’s] efforts to serve subpoenas to any witnesses in the upcoming trial.”

Lee County Sheriff Tracy Carter

The lawsuit against Carter claims that the Lee County Sheriff’s Office used excessive force while arresting Steven “Wayne” Thomas in 2009 after reports he was acting erratically and had damaged a fence on the side of a road.

According to the lawsuit, sheriff’s deputies assaulted Thomas, who was unarmed, and broke his jaw, causing him to lose a tooth, before using a stun gun to administer electric shocks eight separate times in a span of three minutes, eleven times in total.

Thomas, who is seeking up to $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, also claims he was held in jail for over three days without being allowed to post bail.

Sheriff Carter is on record having defended the actions of his deputies. TruthVoice found a statement taken shortly after the arrest, in which Carter said:

“The officers responded to a situation where they knew (Thomas) was being combative, and I feel like they used a reasonable amount of force. I’m glad they had their tasers because it could have been much worse.”

The trial for the excessive force lawsuit against Carter is currently set for June 2.

Every part of Shawn Northrup’s midsummer evening walk with his wife, daughter, grandson, and dog was legal — including the holstered handgun he openly carried on his hip. But that was not enough to keep Northrup from being disarmed, handcuffed, and threatened with arrest by a police officer. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let the officer who illegally detained Northrup escape accountability, exemplifying the kind of judicial engagement that is needed to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Northrup, a resident of Toledo, Ohio, was enjoying a peaceful walk with his family when a passing motorcyclist, Alan Rose, caught sight of his firearm and yelled that Northrup could not “walk around with a gun like that.” Northrup’s wife, Denise, informed Rose (correctly) that it is perfectly legal to openly carry firearms in Ohio. Rose nonetheless called 911, stating that he had observed “a man carrying his gun out in the open.” The dispatcher also told Rose that it is legal to openly carry firearms in Ohio but, apparently a bit uncertain, directed Officer David Bright of the Toledo Police Department to the scene, relating to Bright that Northrup was “walking his dog … carrying a handgun out in the open.”

When Bright encountered Northrup, Northrup was still walking his dog, his gun secure in its holster. What happened after Bright stepped out of his vehicle and approached Northrup is disputed. According to Northrup, Bright announced that he would shoot Northrup if he went for his weapon, refused to any answer questions about what was going on or whether Northrup was free to leave, and threatened to arrest Northrup for “inducing a panic.” Ultimately, Bright disarmed Northrup, placed him in handcuffs, and put him in a squad car, where he remained for half an hour. Upon discovering that Northrup had a concealed-carry permit (which, in point of fact, he did not need in order to openly carry his gun), Bright released Northrup with a citation for “failure to disclose personal information.” (The charges were later dropped.)

Northrup sued Bright and other members of the Toledo Police Department in federal court, alleging violations of his rights under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments as well as state law. The district court rejected Northrup’s First and Second Amendment claims but held that his Fourth Amendment and state-law claims against Bright could go to trial. Bright then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, asserting qualified immunity from suit. Qualified immunity protects police officers from being held personally liable for violating rights unless those rights are “clearly established.” In practice, this judge-made doctrine all too often insulates police misconduct from both liability and meaningful judicial scrutiny.

It has long been established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from coercively stopping and frisking people without any reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime or are about to commit a crime. In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court defined “reasonable suspicion,” explaining that officers must be able to point to specific, observable facts and evidence indicating that a person is “armed and dangerous” — an inarticulate “hunch” or intuition will not suffice. Nor is it enough for officers to suspect that a person is armed. As the Tenth Circuit would later put it, to hold that the presence of a gun is sufficient to justify a frisk would be to “effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons.”

In a carefully reasoned opinion, Judge Jeffrey Sutton determined that if Northrup’s account of the events was accurate, whatever suspicions Bright may have harbored that Northrup was committing a crime or was about to do so were not reasonable. The specific facts that Bright relied upon in stopping, disarming, and detaining Northrup consisted entirely in (1) Northrup’s open possession of a firearm, and (2) the 911 call, which informed Bright that Northrup was openly carrying a firearm. Neither of these facts suggested that Northrup was breaking the law or was dangerous. As Judge Sutton pointedly observed, “While the dispatcher and [911 caller] may not have known the details of Ohio’s open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty.” While Bright argued that he faced a difficult decision — “respond to the communities’ fear and the appearance of the gunman” or “do nothing … and hope that he was not about to start shooting” — Sutton rejected this as a false choice. Absent any actual evidence that Bright was “about to start shooting,” Sutton reasoned, “Bright’s hope … remains another word for the trust that Ohioans have placed in their State’s approach to gun licensure and gun possession.”

No law-abiding American out for a walk with his family and his dog should end up in the back of a police car. No officer responsible for putting him there should be able to escape responsibility for his misconduct. Judge Sutton’s decision provides a blueprint for ensuring that those who enforce the law are not beyond its reach. As for Bright, a jury of Ohioans will determine whether he betrayed their trust.

Published by Evan Bernick on huffingtonpost.com