Criminal Cops

Criminal Cops

How to Survive Police Misconduct!

Samuel Clark, Retired Police Lieutenant

* * *

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2011 Disclosure Research and Publishing

Cover Photo by Danielle Clark

http://www.criminalcops.net

All rights reserved: This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, or transmitted in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system now known or hereafter invented, without written permission from the publisher.

* * *

This book is dedicated to all victims of police misconduct and to the honest police officers who have been harmed by police misconduct. We must fully understand that any conclusions about the guilt of an accused person, reached through discussions by fallible people, will unavoidably be shadowed in doubt. - S. Clark

* * *

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

Biography

Disclaimer

Preface

Chapter 1 Domestic Tranquility

Chapter 2 Do We Really Need the Police?

Chapter 3 Police Training

Chapter 4 What Should You Do When Confronted by the Police?

Chapter 5 Internal Affairs

Chapter 6 Don’t Worry, You’re Innocent!

Chapter 7 You Have the Right to Remain Silent!

Chapter 8 Confessions

Chapter 9 Criminals

Chapter 10 Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury

Chapter 11 The Power Is in Your Hands

* * *

Acknowledgments

This book could not have been written without information, research, inspiration, and support from many dedicated individuals and organizations.

Ron Anicich - Activist/Journalist Toronto Canada Darren Nance - Former Newark N.J. Police Officer James Nance - Retired Newark N.J. Police Officer WASET Kommunity Center - Newark N.J. Joe Rudolph - Founder of kpoo 89.5 fm San Francisco Mr. K.J. - Researcher from Essex County N.J. Captain Andrew Selby - Paterson Fire Department, member of Bronze Heat Deputy Chief Kevin Hailey - member of the Brotherhood of United Firefighters and the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters Ted Meekins - Retired Bridgeport CT Police Officer Asa Olusoia - waif 88.3 fm Cincinnati, Ohio Last, but certainly not least, I must acknowledge my wife Renee for her tolerance and love. And also my children and grandchildren for the warm glow they put in my heart.

* * *

Biography

Samuel Clark was born and raised in Newark, New Jersey, and joined the Newark Police Department on November 20, 1972. During his more than 25 years with the police department, Mr. Clark has worked as an officer in the patrol division, as a detective assigned to the juvenile bureau, and on all kinds of cases ranging from harassment to homicide. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1994 and to lieutenant in 1997.

In 1995 Mr. Clark, while on duty and serving in a supervisory capacity, suffered police brutality at the hands of a lower-ranking Newark police officer. When the officer received a mere reprimand, Clark was prompted to investigate the policies and practices of the Newark Police Department. Not only did he find that the police department had failed to terminate or properly sanction officers who had committed rape, assault, auto theft, and other serious crimes; he also found that corruption and differential treatment pervaded the entire department.

When Clark attempted to fulfill his ethical and sworn responsibility to report corruption and differential treatment to his supervisors, they and other high-ranking police officials responded by slapping him with harsh sanctions. Mr. Clark even appeared before the Newark Municipal Council and offered public testimony regarding the corruption he had uncovered. The council, however, did little to stop the corruption or to protect Clark from retaliation. On April 9, 1999, Mr. Clark was terminated from the police department.

Mr. Clark is now retired from the police department and is currently living in Pennsylvania with his wife and daughter. He is writing additional books on police corruption, and participating in police corruption seminars. Clark is also assisting victims of police misconduct and testifying in court cases of police misconduct.

* * *

Disclaimer

The information in this book is provided to give the public insight into the internal processes, policies, and practices of police departments and the processes of the criminal justice system. The information presented in this book is not legal advice and is not meant to serve as legal advice. Readers should always seek the advice of a competent attorney whenever they believe a member of a law enforcement agency has violated their rights, or when questioned about or accused of a crime.

"We will be able to stop this blind obedience when we begin to realize the establishment is not only fallible, but frequently lies to maintain our allegiance and trust." - S. Clark

* * *

Preface

Police officers are empowered by law to protect the lives and property of citizens. The public has entrusted the police with power and authority to detain citizens accused of committing a crime, until there is a judicial hearing to determine that citizen’s guilt or innocence. In the course of performing their responsibilities and duties to serve the public, police officers in certain specific circumstances are authorized to use deadly force. Police officers are expected to be honest, truthful, fair, and dedicated to the rule of law. Therefore criminal acts committed by a police officer should be an extremely rare occurrence. This occasional criminal behavior of a rare rogue police officer would, if detected, certainly result in the forfeiture of his or her employment as a police officer. Unfortunately the termination of a rogue police officer’s employment is the exception and not the rule. This is not because high-ranking police officials failed to detect the rogue cop’s criminal acts, it’s because police supervisors and high-ranking police officials protect rogue cops and cover up their criminal acts. By protecting these criminal acts of subordinate officers, police supervisors are also committing a criminal offense.

Since the establishment in 1844 of the first police department in New York City, misconduct and corruption has plagued numerous police departments. However, the police have been solely responsible for policing themselves and purging rogue police officers from the police department. This self-policing system, filled with partiality, secrecy, and conflict of interest, has not only failed to retard corruption, but has resulted in an unprecedented spike in police misconduct. Rogue police officers and supervisors continue to protect illegal drug, gambling, prostitution, and theft rings, but also operate illegal enterprises. Police corruption is now a multibillion dollar industry. It cannot be stopped by the present system that allows the police to police themselves. Until police misconduct is stopped, criminals will not only victimize citizens, but citizens will also be victimized by police officers who have taken an oath to protect them.

This book is an effort to inform and protect the public from the severe dangers of runaway police misconduct that presently exist throughout the United States. It provides suggestions about what to do when you are confronted by the police in certain situations. Important information about internal police policies, practices, procedures and police culture are also provided. This book explains the inherent fallibility of the self-policing system presently being used. It also provides solutions and simple anti-police corruption actions that can be performed by any citizen.

The author of this book is not an anti-police zealot, but an individual dedicated to justice for all. Samuel Clark is a former police lieutenant with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement. He is a corruption whistle-blower and a survivor of police brutality.

* * *

Chapter 1: Domestic Tranquility

It was Thursday, March 24, 1994. This typical early spring day in Boston, Massachusetts, would become tragically untypical for one peace loving gentlemen. The Reverend Accelyne Williams, originally of Antigua, is a seventy-five-year-old retired minister. He and his wife live in an apartment located in the Dorchester section of Boston. Sad to say, this neighborhood is labeled a high-crime area.

There is some truth to the label. Crime does occur in this neighborhood in greater proportions than other neighborhoods. Apartments and homes have been burglarized. Neighbors have been robbed and assaulted, especially at night. The distribution of illegal drugs also occurs in this neighborhood.

But Reverend Williams is not a burglar, he’s not a stickup man, nor is he a seller of illicit drugs. He is a man of peace who gets pleasure and comfort from reading the scriptures. He is a good citizen, a good neighbor, and an asset to this community. On this fateful day he is home alone while his wife is out running errands. However, within a few moments his safety and security will be quickly and dramatically shattered. His limited domestic tranquility, always suspect, will suddenly evaporate, leaving death and misery in its wake. This incident of force and violence, although it occurred in a high-crime area, disintegrated society’s normal hardened shell of insensitivity to the human anguish suffered by good citizens who dwell in economically depressed areas. This senseless attack would prompt any peace loving human to question the motivation, rationale, and thought processes of the attackers.

Suddenly Reverend Williams’ front door was rammed open by a dozen men, some wearing masks over their faces and carrying shotguns. Try to imagine the stark fear and utter terror felt by Reverend Williams as he was confronted by obviously negative intentions of these masked intruders. Despite his advanced age (he was aided by reflex action and the innate desire to escape bodily harm) Reverend Williams was able to flee into a bedroom and close that door. Within seconds Reverend Williams discovered this effort to elude his attackers was futile. The securing sound of the bedroom door closing was instantly followed by frightful wood splitting sounds as the bedroom door exploded open. These attackers poured through the bedroom door and pounced on the terrified Reverend Williams. The horrendous attack caused Reverend Williams to suffer cardiac arrest. He died before an ambulance could transport him to a hospital.

No valuables were taken from the apartment by the attackers. Calling the police to report the incident would not be necessary. Unfortunately the men who rammed their way into the apartment of Reverend Williams were police officers.

This police action that resulted in the death of an elderly, innocent, and model citizen, must be questioned. Why did the police use a battering ram to force open Reverend Williams’ apartment door? How and why did the police, who are sworn to protect and serve, kill a law-abiding citizen?

The police were executing a no knock search warrant at Reverend Williams’ apartment when they tragically forced their way in. But why did the police execute a no knock warrant at Reverend Williams’ apartment? The warrant was for person or persons distributing illicit drugs. We must therefore assume the police received significant verifiable evidence that seventy-five-year-old Reverend Williams and his wife were distributing illegal drugs from their apartment. This verified information should have been included in the affidavit and warrant application presented to a judge by Boston police officers. The information in the affidavit and warrant application must establish probable cause that a search in a specific location will uncover evidence related to a crime. With that understanding in mind, we must conclude the police made some kind of verifiable connection between the unlawful distribution of drugs and Reverend Williams and his wife. Yet, the tragic facts clearly show that illegal drugs were not distributed from the Williams’ apartment, and neither Reverend Williams nor his wife had any involvement with illegal drugs. But this all seems confusing. The police verified the information, yet the wrong apartment was still forced open! Is this a mystery riddle, or an official police charade? Surely the police can provide some information that would bring focus and meaning to this convoluted incident. What did the police say about this unnecessary and fatal blunder?

According to the police, the information supplied by an informant was flawed. The Police Commissioner was forced to apologize to the victim’s wife, and two years later she received one million dollars from the city of Boston in a wrongful death suit.

The level of police negligence in this incident cannot be fully appreciated without a closer analysis of the actions taken by the police. This tragic incident occurred because the police attempted to protect the public by enforcing the drug laws. In that effort, the police obtained information from an informant. As a consequence of receiving this information, the police applied for and did receive a no knock search warrant. After executing the search warrant, resulting in the death of Reverend Williams, the police then discovered the information reported in The New York Times, April 25, 1996 supplied by an informant was flawed. These facts indicate the police operation was flawed. The discovery of the flawed information should have occurred prior to filing the application for a search warrant.

It should be standard operating procedure to have informant obtained information verified. Informant information can be false or simply made up. In addition, an informant could have several ulterior motives for providing false information. This reality makes verification imperative. Obviously the police investigators did not verify the informant’s information. If the police had checked the information for accuracy, they would have discovered discrepancies and should not have applied for a search warrant at the apartment of Reverend Williams. Failure to verify the information was a departure (by the police department) from sound reasonable procedures.

An application for a search warrant must be based on reasonably truthful information. Is information reasonably truthful simply because it was provided by an informant? What makes an informant’s information reliable, reasonable, or factual? Is an informant’s information the equivalent of probable cause? These questions can’t be objectively answered until the information provided by the informant is verified.

Executing a search warrant is a serious intrusion on a citizen’s privacy. A no knock search warrant is extremely intrusive and exposes a citizen to additional risks. It is irresponsible for law enforcement officers to apply for a no knock search warrant in the absence of basic verifiable information. In this incident, the information supplied by the informant was flawed. This flawed information about the location of the suspect apartment was included in the warrant affidavit and search warrant application. Law enforcement officers knowingly submitted this unverified information as probable cause to obtain the search warrant. This warrant application to the court, submitted by the police department, contained information that was at least unverified and possibly falsified. Unverified and or false information in a warrant application is a serious act that undermines justice and could be a serious criminal offense. It certainly establishes culpability by members of the police department. One or more police officers obviously committed a violation of policy, regulation, and or criminal law. Therefore one or more police officers should have been sanctioned for their improper conduct. In addition, police supervisors did not discover the erroneous information until it resulted in the tragic death of Reverend Williams. Consequently, they did not properly supervise and also violated some rule, regulation, or law. These improper acts by members of the police department are acts of police misconduct.

The solution to properly addressing the acts of police misconduct in the Reverend Williams incident (and any other acts of police misconduct) are not achieved solely by financial compensation to the victims and their families. Now this is not to say victims of police misconduct are not entitled to compensation. Usually the compensation is not sufficient. Still, this financial compensation alone doesn’t change the behavior of the culpable police officers,