LAPPL Blog: The official blog of the Los Angeles Policy Protective League
Jury convicts man of attempted murder of LAPD officers
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 07/05/2012 @ 10:37 AM
On Oct. 15, 2008, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier flagged down two police officers working the Olympic Area transition team. The mail carrier had been hit in the head by Romeo Ramos after requesting that Mr. Ramos sign a certified mail receipt. As the officers were attempting to detain him, Mr. Ramos pulled a knife and attempted to stab one of the officers. They drew their weapons and he immediately turned and walked into his apartment building.
Despite the assault with a deadly weapon, the officers showed great restraint in not shooting the suspect because he was no longer an immediate threat to the officers and was fleeing. LAPD SWAT responded and a seven-hour standoff ensued. During the standoff, the suspect engaged in defiant and bizarre behavior. He showered officers with multiple items, including a vacuum cleaner, marbles and a large wooden box. He then threatened to kill the officers, and he threw a knife at a group of three officers, narrowly missing them.
When negotiations failed and Mr. Ramos was still unwilling to surrender, SWAT officers attempted to arrest him. The defiant Mr. Ramos then doused the officers with lighter fluid and set fire to the top of the stairway the officers were on. The officers quickly devised a plan and were able to extinguish the fire. Mr. Ramos repeatedly threatened to kill the officers and proceeded to barricade himself in an apartment. He armed himself with additional knives. The highly skilled SWAT officers utilized specialized less lethal weapons to neutralize the defendant and take him into custody.
One of the officers attempting to safely resolve this standoff using less lethal tools was Robert J. Cottle, an LAPD SWAT officer and U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Major who was killed in the line of duty in March 2010 while serving in Afghanistan. On June 29, 2012, through the tenacious efforts of Deputy District Attorney Frank M. Tavelman of the L.A. County District Attorney's Crimes Against Peace Officers Section (CAPOS), a jury convicted Mr. Ramos of attempted murder of a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon on four police officers, assault with a deadly weapon on a civilian, and arson of an inhabited structure.
We express our thanks to the CAPOS unit and the fine legal team that District Attorney Steve Cooley has assembled to prosecute those who harm police officers. While their work often goes unnoticed, it is greatly appreciated.
Because the involved officers' actions did not result in sensational news headlines, the media did not cover this case. However, we recognize that the restraint, excellent performance and tactics of all the officers involved four years ago is an example of the unnoticed but outstanding work LAPD officers deliver every day to the residents of Los Angeles.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
California voter imperative: Stop payroll deception on November ballot
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 07/03/2012 @ 12:03 PM
It was a big week for the U.S. Supreme Court. Last Monday, the Court threw out key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, struck down automatic life sentences without parole for juveniles convicted of murder and on Thursday upheld most of president’s health care law. Those were the headline grabbing decisions.
Less attention went to the Court’s upholding of limitless political donations from super political action committees, or super PACs. This ruling ends for now a controversial saga in the court's 2010 Citizens United case, which along with other federal rulings, has stripped away restrictions on political contributions from corporations, labor unions and millionaires and billionaires.
In our view, this ruling makes it an even greater imperative that California voters defeat a measure on this November’s statewide ballot. The payroll deception measure, officially titled the Special Exemptions Act, claims to be about “stopping special interests,” but it would actually award special exemptions to corporate special interests. It would give the wealthy and well-connected even more power to influence elections, control government and weaken our state’s middle class.
At the same time, it would severely restrict public safety employees and other union members in both the public and private sectors from having a voice in our political process. Police officers, firefighters, teachers and nurses, among others, would be unable to speak out on issues that matter to us all – like cuts to police and fire (affecting response times), our schools and colleges, patient safety and workplace protections.
We invite you to learn more by watching a video on the importance of stopping the officially titled Special Exemptions Act this November. The video and other important information is available on the League’s web site.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
USC journalist maligns LAPD detectives
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/26/2012 @ 02:19 PM
One would expect a news story questioning the integrity of hard working LAPD detectives to be backed by thorough reporting and years of experience investigating shootings and murders. But none of these things are evident in “New Details In Shooting Case Linked To USC Murders Point To Lax Investigation,” by USC Neon Tommy journalist Catherine Green. If anything is “lax,” it’s her reporting.
Ms. Green’s sensationalistic, innuendo-filled story suggests LAPD detectives could have prevented the April 11 murders of USC graduate students Wu Ying and Qu Ming. According to her story, a key witness was able to identify prime suspect Bryan Barnes and his accused accomplice Javier Bolden from a Feb. 12 crime, when they allegedly opened fire at a party. Green relies heavily on a search warrant contained in court documents to malign the LAPD.
Lost on this reporter is the purpose of search warrant affidavits, which is to demonstrate probable cause to a judge in order to authorize a police search. Just as a news story cannot include every single word uttered by people the reporter interviewed, the search warrant seeks to inform the judge of only the most relevant facts so the court can make an informed decision based on the information provided by police.
Green’s reporting fails to consider the fact that a total of 262 people were shot in the Department’s South Bureau in the time period examined. Every one of these shootings has to be investigated, and obviously, detectives must conduct multiple investigations at the same time. Drawing conclusions about the depth and adequacy of any one of these investigations based on summaries of parts of the investigations drawn from a search warrant is lazy, superficial reporting. The full depth of the investigation will be revealed by the accompanying police reports and courtroom testimony, which may not provide the headline or instant judgment a reporter might desire, but will provide the truth.
While Ms. Green seeks headlines in her rush to judgment of multiple police investigations based on a single document, we believe it’s more fair and accurate to allow the entire story to unfold before judging the performance of detectives in this case.
Needed officer privacy legislation stymied in Sacramento
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/18/2012 @ 01:59 PM
State Senate Governance and Finance Committee Chair Lois Wolk.
After the home addresses of more than a dozen LAPD members were posted anonymously on the Internet, Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) introduced in the California Legislature a bill actively supported by the League. AB 2299 lets counties establish programs to redact the names of police officers, judges and other public safety officials from real estate records to protect their residences from those who may wish to do them harm.
The bill sailed through the Assembly on a 68-0 vote and seemed on its way to certain passage. But when it arrived at the State Senate Governance and Finance Committee on June 13, committee chair and State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) unwisely chose to actively oppose the bill. She personally lobbied committee members to defeat a motion for the bill’s advancement to the Senate floor. Wolk invited Feuer to hold the bill for "more study.” This was, as Feuer put it, "a gentle way to kill the bill." He called for a vote, but Wolk used the power of her committee chair to announce that the bill would be held in committee. Given how late it is in the current legislative session, it’s doubtful anything can be done to keep the bill moving at this time.
Regardless of what happens in the remainder of this session, we recognize and thank Mr. Feuer for his commitment to doing everything possible to protect peace officers’ privacy, and we congratulate him on a fine piece of legislation on which to build during the next session.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
The Kings, the fans and the LAPD: A great week in L.A.
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/15/2012 @ 02:03 PM
When the L.A. Kings took a 3-0 lead in the first period of the sixth game of the Stanley Cup playoffs against the New Jersey Devils, the LAPD issued a citywide tactical alert from an abundance of caution. You knew then the Kings were on their way to win their first Stanley Cup in franchise history. Weeks of planning and preparation were about to be tested as thousands of fans decked in black and purple converged on L.A. Live to celebrate.
The morning of what turned out to be the final game, Chief Beck continued to hammer home a constant theme of the playoff series: “If you make trouble tonight, the LAPD will find and arrest you.” The warnings were well advised. After all, memories of the disturbances following the Lakers’ NBA titles in 2009 and 2010 were still fresh. Adding to the concern were images from the large riot that consumed Vancouver last year after the Canucks lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals.
As impressive as the Kings were on the ice inside Staples Center, the men and women of the LAPD were impressive on the streets surrounding L.A. Live. Those of us on the scene and many who watched on television were proud of the professionalism and dedication exhibited by the LAPD that ensured a great night in L.A. sports history. The icing on the cake was the repeat performance three days later when the huge crowd turned out for the downtown parade and Staples Center rally.
It was one of those feel-good weeks in L.A. we will long remember and cherish. We would be remiss if we did not recognize the vast majority of the fans who cheered and celebrated their team with pride, and respect for law and order. LAPD Cmdr. Andy Smith summed it up on Channel 4 News hours after the game that clinched the cup: “I think you could say the LAPD are big fans of the Kings fans. They did a great job out here tonight; very peaceful, very good crowd. Everybody was well-behaved and we’re really proud of them.”
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
California legislature’s U-turn on law and order issues
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 05/30/2012 @ 09:58 AM
One of the low points in the history of victims’ rights was the Rose Bird Supreme Court. Relying on the doctrine of “independent state ground,” the court issued scores of headshaking decisions consistently in favor of criminals. These rulings hampered evidence collection and kept collected evidence out of trials. Unsurprisingly, California crime rates soared.
Fed up voters began correcting this disastrous era in June 1982 by passing Proposition 8, which put the brakes on the Bird Court’s attempts to remake criminal law. The California Constitution was amended to bring evidence suppression limits in line with those of the U.S. Constitution, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the present legislature has begun a concerted back door effort to undo Prop. 8 and its requirement that California follow the federal exclusionary rule. In the past year, there has been a bill mandating the taping of suspects’ statements, with a requirement that these statements be suppressed if they aren’t recorded—despite there being no such requirement by the Miranda ruling. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on police use of GPS devices, a bill was introduced to drastically expand on the court’s decision by requiring a search warrant in all cases of GPS use and the exclusion of evidence if no warrant had been issued.
After a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upheld strip searches of new jail inmates, a bill sought to countermand that decision by barring such searches and preventing weapons and contraband found on these inmates from being introduced in court. Gov. Brown had to veto a bill passed last year that would have required a search warrant for officers to look through cell phones seized from arrestees’ immediate person — after the California Supreme Court had expressly upheld such searches.
Another bill sailing through the legislature, despite opposition from law enforcement and victims’ rights groups, would make it virtually impossible to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers. Police would be required to call a licensed driver to take away or park the vehicle; if the car has to be impounded, an officer would need his or her supervisor's permission.
These actions come on the heels of the legislatures’ near-dismantling of the state prison system last year, which drastically reduced the types of convicted criminals that can be sent to prison, shortened sentences, and eliminated supervision of inmates upon their release.
It appears some California legislators want very strongly to return to the bad old days of the Bird court. They shouldn’t try to chip away at Prop. 8 by enacting statutes that hamper evidence collection and its use in criminal cases. If state lawmakers want to change what voters put in place, they should run a proposition that asks voters to overturn Prop. 8. Otherwise, they must accept the will of the voters.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Once again, a failure to follow precedent at the 9th Circuit
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 05/18/2012 @ 05:09 PM
“We’ve given police a simple, common-sense rule to deal with vehicles that are left unattended because the driver has been placed under arrest.”
If those words had been used by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of the U.S. vs. Cervantes, we’d say, “Amen!” Unfortunately, those were the words of dissenting Judge Sandra Ikuta in a three-judge panel ruling of the Court.
As we’ve written on many occasions, the 9th Circuit Court has a knack for arriving at result-oriented decisions that must later be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s easy to see why that reputation is deserved when you consider this particular case. This case should be yet another decision that the Supreme Court, and an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit, reverses.
Jesus Antonio Ramos Cervantes’ vehicle was stopped by LAPD officers for a traffic violation, and since he was an unlicensed driver, his car was later impounded by LAPD officers. The officers, following well established law on impounds and LAPD policies regarding impounds, found two kilograms of cocaine in the car. Federal District Court Judge John Walker denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the seized cocaine.
A federal appeals court in Pasadena found that LAPD officers who stopped Cervantes should not have impounded the car, but merely cited Cervantes and moved along. Courthouse News reporter Tim Hull recounts the details of the case in his recent story. The twists and turns the majority took to ignore established and straightforward law are admirably laid out in the dissent by Judge Ikuta. She rightfully argued that the majority had unnecessarily complicated a simple issue and had “silently overruled our long line of precedents establishing the community caretaking doctrine.”
“No complex legal analysis is required,” Judge Ikuta wrote. “The police merely have to determine whether it’s necessary to remove the vehicle from a public location in order to ‘prevent it from (1) creating a hazard to other drivers or (2) being a target for vandalism or theft.’ If the officers determine that either prong of this simple test is met, they may impound the vehicle in furtherance of their community caretaking function.”
A result-oriented decision by two liberal 9th Circuit judges should not be allowed to complicate what are established and straightforward rules. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. We look forward to another court reviewing this decision and upholding the right of the LAPD officers to legally impound and search vehicles under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment.
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
AB 109 delivers an insult to justice
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 05/04/2012 @ 05:09 PM
AB 109, the state’s new prison realignment law, will go down as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted in California. As the list of its failures continues to grow, the only possible explanation is that either the bill’s supporters actually believe serious crimes should go unpunished, or that they are seriously incapable of crafting laws that protect the public.
The headlines behind this misguided “reform” of the criminal justice system trumpeted its dual aims of reducing the prison population and helping save the state millions of dollars. It’s now estimated that $5.9 billion in responsibilities was shifted to local counties. Californians were assured that criminals sentenced to imprisonment would still be held accountable in local custody. But this legislation’s disastrous consequences continue to add up.
Realignment’s latest outrage comes from Merced, California, where a public safety officer was killed by a DUI driver. Because of AB 109, that driver will not spend a single day behind bars.
On June 9, 2011, Amie Chick was driving with a blood alcohol level over .07, marijuana in her system and possibly while talking on a cell phone. At that same moment, 29-year-old Los Banos firefighter Andrew Maloney was riding his 2011 Suzuki motorcycle southbound on Highway 165 in Merced County when Amie Chick turned left in front of Maloney, killing him in the resulting crash.
Chick later pleaded guilty to one count of felony vehicular manslaughter and was to begin serving her sentence of a year in jail on April 23. Under AB 109’s terms, however, she was immediately eligible for a house-arrest program because she was classified as a low-level prison inmate sentenced for a non-serious, non-violent crime. This allows her to serve her sentence at home while wearing an electronic monitoring device.
This is only one of the many tragic cases now unfolding that demonstrate how in their haste to remake punishment in California, the legislature in fact gutted punishment as a consequence of crime. Will AB 109’s proponents tell Andrew Maloney’s family their intention was that his death not be punished, or that the complete lack of punishment for his killing was simply an oversight—a case of legislative incompetence?
We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Currently reading page 6 of 34.
Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next Page
