Oct 092012
 

Former California DOC Parole agent / Current Private Investigator…  Arrested For Impersonating Police Officer

 

CBS 13 News
Sacramento, CA
by Steve Large

August 15, 2012

 

 

 

YOLO COUNTY (CBS13) –

Police arrested a private eye for impersonating an officer. They say he was trying to get unauthorized police records for his clients.

He’s a private eye now in the public spotlight.

Anthony Vegas allegedly lost a big bet.

“This is highly unusual,” said Woodland Police Department Lt. Anthony Cucchi.

 

The retired parole agent was trying to retrieve redacted police reports for a client by impersonating an officer, say police.

“There are some police reports where the victim’s protected. We protect their identity so that the suspect can’t find them later,” said Cucchi.

Vegas allegedly doctored his old corrections ID and used a phony badge to trick several local police records departments into giving him what he wanted.

And police say it was working. He reportedly gathered unauthorized records from Woodland and Sacramento police and the Solano County Sheriff’s Department before getting arrested in the act at the Yolo County’s Sheriff’s Department.

Vegas closed the door on CBS13 when we asked him for his comment, but he’s at the center of an open and ongoing investigation, charged with impersonating an officer.

Vegas may also see an additional charge of forgery when he goes before a judge.

 

Direct Link:  http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/08/15/private-investigator-arrested-for-impersonating-police-officer/

 

 

 

Feb 292012
 

Two police officers hurt in skirmish at state Capitol

Occupy protesters and white supremacists clash briefly before authorities intervene.

Los Angeles Times
By Michael J. Mishak
February 28, 2012
CHP officer 

A CHP bicycle officer was injured after tackling a protestor during a skirmish at the state Capitol in Sacramento.

(Randy Pench / Sacramento Bee / February 27, 2012)

 

 

 

Reporting from Sacramento—

Two police officers were injured Monday during a clash between Occupy protesters and white supremacists that spilled into the streets around the state Capitol.

Authorities said the skirmish erupted as officers escorted members of the South Africa Project to their cars after an afternoon demonstration on the south steps of the Capitol. Counter-protesters, including members of the Occupy Oakland movement, intercepted the group, hurling rocks, glass bottles and paint-filled plastic eggs.

Two California Highway Patrol officers were taken from the scene by ambulance to be treated for minor injuries, said Officer Sean Kennedy, a CHP spokesman.

Authorities said the Occupy protesters outnumbered the South Africa Project members, who were at the Capitol to draw attention to what they described as black-on-white violence in South Africa. Eyewitnesses described a chaotic scene, saying police moved quickly to contain the violence after bottles were thrown.

“It got really chaotic really fast,” said Tricia Blakeman, a member of Occupy Sacramento who was at the Capitol to protest the pro-white demonstrators. “They tackled everybody who looked like they had a bottle.”

According to the CHP, the Occupy crowd turned on law enforcement officers after the South Africa Project adherents fled in their cars. Police arrested four counter-protesters.

An hour after the skirmish started, the streets were quiet. Police had cordoned off several blocks near the Capitol, and officers in riot gear and on horseback stood at street corners to separate remaining protesters.

 

 

Direct Link:   http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sacramento-clash-20120228,0,3445881.story?track=rss

Jan 232012
 

Officers justified in invading home without warrant, court rules

U.S. Supreme Court says Burbank officers investigating a rumor that a student was planning to ‘shoot up’ his high school were justified in invading his home without a warrant because of concerns that violence was imminent.

Los Angeles Times

By Carol J. Williams

January 24, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Burbank police officers investigating a rumor that a truant teenager was planning to “shoot up” Bellarmine-Jefferson High School five years ago were justified in invading the student’s home without a warrant because of concerns that violence was imminent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous, unsigned decision by the high court served as fresh censure of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with which the justices are frequently at odds. A three-judge panel of the appeals court had ruled, 2 to 1, against granting immunity to two of the four Burbank Police Department officers who entered the home without a warrant.

Vincent Huff, a student at the private Catholic high school at the time of the 2007 incident, had been subjected to bullying and had been absent for two days when police were alerted by school authorities to “a rumor about a letter” in which the student had allegedly warned of an attack on the school.

Huff’s parents, George and Maria, failed to answer their telephone or front door when officers arrived to investigate. When one of the officers called Maria Huff on her cellphone to inform her that they were outside, she came out with her son to talk to the officers. She declined to invite them in, and when asked if there were guns in the house, she rushed back inside. Officers followed, fearing that a violent confrontation might be imminent, according to court documents.

A federal district court judge ruled that the warrantless intrusion violated the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure but that the officers were entitled to immunity because they had acted in response to what they thought was an imminent danger.

The 9th Circuit panel, however, deemed the intrusion illegal and the assumption that violence was about to occur unreasonable because “there was no underlying offense; the officers were investigating rumors.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. “The panel majority did not heed the district court’s wise admonition that judges should be cautious about second-guessing a police officer’s assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented by a particular situation,” the justices said, calling the panel’s method of analyzing the case “entirely unrealistic.”

A call to the Huffs’ attorney, Leo James Terrell of Beverly Hills, was not returned.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case coincided with its decision on another search-and-seizure matter. The high court ruled that the clandestine installation of GPS tracking devices on suspects’ vehicles by police without a warrant violates the right of an individual to be free from unreasonable searches.

 

Direct Link:  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-burbank-search-20120124,0,3687264.story

Dec 172011
 

Judge Dismisses Twitter Stalking Case
The New York Times
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
December 15, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — In a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for freedom of expression on the Internet, a federal judge on Thursday dismissed a criminal case against a man accused of stalking a religious leader on Twitter, saying that the Constitution protects “uncomfortable” speech on such bulletin-boardlike sites.

The government had accused the defendant, William Lawrence Cassidy, of harassing and causing “substantial emotional distress” to a Buddhist religious leader named Alyce Zeoli. He had posted thousands of messages about her, some predicting her violent death. He lived in California, she in Maryland.

In his 27-page order, Judge Roger W. Titus wrote that “while Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters.”

The United States attorney’s office in Maryland, which filed the case, had no comment on the order Thursday, and it was unclear whether it would exercise its right to appeal the decision. Shanlon Wu, a lawyer for Ms. Zeoli, said in an e-mail that his client was “appalled and frightened by the judge’s ruling.”

Mr. Cassidy’s attorneys with the Federal Public Defender’s office said they were working on his release from jail. Mr. Cassidy’s diatribes on Twitter, posted under an ever-changing list of pseudonyms, were along these lines: “Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day.”

In his order, Judge Titus drew an analogy to the colonial period, when the Bill of Rights was written. A blog, he said, is like a bulletin board that a person of that time might have planted in his front yard. “If one colonist wants to see what is on another’s bulletin board, he would need to walk over to his neighbor’s yard and look at what is posted, or hire someone else to do so,” he offered.

With Twitter, he went on, news from one colonist’s bulletin board could automatically show up on another’s. The postings can be “turned on or off by the owners of the bulletin boards,” he wrote. In other words, one can disregard what is posted on a bulletin board. “This is in sharp contrast to a telephone call, letter or e-mail specifically addressed to and directed at another person,” he concluded.

Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, based in San Francisco, which filed a brief in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, said he was heartened by the distinction that the judge drew between speech on a public platform, versus through e-mail or telephone.

The order is among the first to address a recently expanded cyberstalking law and, as such, could have important repercussions. “This is an area where there has been very little case law,” said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It is likely to be quite influential.”

Direct Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/technology/judge-dismisses-case-of-accused-twitter-stalker.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26

Dec 032011
 

Police Officers Find That Dissent on Drug Laws May Come With a Price
The New York Times
Tyler Hicks
December 2, 2011


United States Customs and Border Protection agents waiting to inspect cars at Nogales, Ariz., an area where marijuana smuggling has been active.
By MARC LACEY

PHOENIX — Border Patrol agents pursue smugglers one moment and sit around in boredom the next. It was during one of the lulls that Bryan Gonzalez, a young agent, made some comments to a colleague that cost him his career.

John Moore/Getty Images
Looking for signs of smugglers near Nogales, Ariz., alongside the fence that now marks part of the nation’s border with Mexico.
Stationed in Deming, N.M., Mr. Gonzalez was in his green-and-white Border Patrol vehicle just a few feet from the international boundary when he pulled up next to a fellow agent to chat about the frustrations of the job. If marijuana were legalized, Mr. Gonzalez acknowledges saying, the drug-related violence across the border in Mexico would cease. He then brought up an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition that favors ending the war on drugs.

Those remarks, along with others expressing sympathy for illegal immigrants from Mexico, were passed along to the Border Patrol headquarters in Washington. After an investigation, a termination letter arrived that said Mr. Gonzalez held “personal views that were contrary to core characteristics of Border Patrol Agents, which are patriotism, dedication and esprit de corps.”

After his dismissal, Mr. Gonzalez joined a group even more exclusive than the Border Patrol: law enforcement officials who have lost their jobs for questioning the war on drugs and are fighting back in the courts.

In Arizona, Joe Miller, a probation officer in Mohave County, near the California border, filed suit last month in Federal District Court after he was dismissed for adding his name to a letter by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which is based in Medford, Mass., and known as LEAP, expressing support for the decriminalization of marijuana.

“More and more members of the law enforcement community are speaking out against failed drug policies, and they don’t give up their right to share their insight and engage in this important debate simply because they receive government paychecks,” said Daniel Pochoda, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is handling the Miller case.

Mr. Miller was one of 32 members of LEAP who signed the letter, which expressed support for a California ballot measure that failed last year that would have permitted recreational marijuana use. Most of the signers were retired members of law enforcement agencies, who can speak their minds without fear of action by their bosses. But Mr. Miller and a handful of others who were still on the job — including the district attorney for Humboldt County in California and the Oakland city attorney — signed, too.

LEAP has seen its membership increase significantly from the time it was founded in 2002 by five disillusioned officers. It now has an e-mail list of 48,000, and its members include 145 judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials, most of them retired, who speak on the group’s behalf.

“No one wants to be fired and have to fight for their job in court,” said Neill Franklin, a retired police officer who is LEAP’s executive director. “So most officers are reluctant to sign on board. But we do have some brave souls.”

Mr. Miller was accused of not making clear that he was speaking for himself and not the probation department while advocating the decriminalization of cannabis. His lawsuit, though, points out that the letter he signed said at the bottom, “All agency affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.”

He was also accused of dishonesty for denying that he had given approval for his name to appear on the LEAP letter. In the lawsuit, Mr. Miller said that his wife had given approval without his knowledge, using his e-mail address, but that he had later supported her.

Kip Anderson, the court administrator for the Superior Court in Mohave County, said there was no desire to limit Mr. Miller’s political views.

“This isn’t about legalization,” Mr. Anderson said. “We’re not taking a stand on that. We just didn’t want people to think he was speaking on behalf of the probation department.”

Mr. Miller, who is also a retired police officer and Marine, lost an appeal of his dismissal before a hearing officer. But when his application for unemployment benefits was turned down, he appealed that and won. An administrative law judge found that Mr. Miller had not been dishonest with his bosses and that the disclaimer on the letter was sufficient.

In the case of Mr. Gonzalez, the fired Border Patrol agent, he had not joined LEAP but had expressed sympathy with the group’s cause. “It didn’t make sense to me why marijuana is illegal,” he said. “To see that thousands of people are dying, some of whom I know, makes you want to look for a change.”

Since his firing, Mr. Gonzalez, who filed suit in federal court in Texas in January, has worked as a construction worker, a bouncer and a yard worker. He has also gone back to school, where he is considering a law degree.


Joe Miller lost his job as a probation officer in Arizona.
“I don’t want to work at a place that says I can’t think,” said Mr. Gonzalez, who grew up in El Paso, just across the border from Ciudad Juárez, which has experienced some of the worst bloodshed in Mexico.

The Justice Department, which is defending the Border Patrol, has sought to have the case thrown out. Mr. Gonzalez lost a discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sided with his supervisors’ view that they had lost trust that he would uphold the law.

Those challenging their dismissals are buoyed by the case of Jonathan Wender, who was fired as a police sergeant in Mountlake Terrace, Wash., in 2005, partly as a result of his support for the decriminalization of marijuana. Mr. Wender won a settlement of $815,000 as well as his old job back. But he retired from the department and took up teaching at the University of Washington, where one of his courses is “Drugs and Society.”

Among those not yet ready to publicly urge the legalization of drugs is a veteran Texas police officer who quietly supports LEAP and spoke on the condition that he not be identified. “We all know the drug war is a bad joke,” he said in a telephone interview. “But we also know that you’ll never get promoted if you’re seen as soft on drugs.”

Mr. Franklin, the LEAP official, said it was natural that those on the front lines of enforcing drug laws would have strong views on them, either way. It was the death of a colleague at the hands of a drug dealer in 2000 that prompted Mr. Franklin, a veteran officer, to begin questioning the nation’s drug policies. Some of his colleagues, though, hit the streets even more aggressively, he said.

Mr. Franklin said he got calls all the time from colleagues skeptical about the drug laws as they are written but unwilling to speak out — yet.

“I was speaking to a guy with the Maryland State Police this past Saturday, and he’s about to retire in January and he’s still reluctant to join us until he leaves,” Mr. Franklin said. “He wants to have a good last couple of months, without any hassle.”
Direct Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/officers-punished-for-supporting-eased-drug-laws.html?pagewanted=1