• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ohio creates a permanent "lying list" for LEOs

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
http://www.policeone.com/officer-mi...cy-creates-permanent-lying-list-for-officers/

The city's public-safety officials consider lying to be a cardinal sin for officers. They say it should almost always result in termination.
But officers don't always lose their jobs for being untruthful, and until recently, the city didn't keep track of those who lie and stay on the force. The lack of oversight has allowed some dishonest officers to receive promotions. Officials say they probably have testified in criminal cases without disclosing the transgression, a violation of federal and state law.
It wasn't until last year that the Police Division created a list of untruthful cops. The Dispatch obtained the list under the Ohio Open Records Act. Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said she is reviewing the list, which was put together before she was named the division's leader in April.
"Our integrity must be unquestioned, so anybody that damages that integrity by being untruthful is looking at the loss of their position," Jacobs said. "I can't say strongly enough how extremely important it is to maintain our integrity with the public."


Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.

And why is this list not routinely published in every newspaper in the State?

I caught a deputy in a provable lie. Fortunately, he chose only to warn me rather than write the ticket. So I only called his supervisor and warned him of the possible consequences to this officer had he written the ticket and I proved in court beyond all doubt that he was lying! LEAs and LEOs need to realize that, in this age of technology, not much of what they do is not recorded in some fashion.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
And why is this list not routinely published in every newspaper in the State?

I caught a deputy in a provable lie. Fortunately, he chose only to warn me rather than write the ticket. So I only called his supervisor and warned him of the possible consequences to this officer had he written the ticket and I proved in court beyond all doubt that he was lying! LEAs and LEOs need to realize that, in this age of technology, not much of what they do is not recorded in some fashion.

Good question. Brady v Maryland has something to say about impeaching the prosecution's witnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
DOJ Study on testilying.......it's a common practice accepted by cops,. prosecutors, and judges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer you will probably end up with the short end of the stick.

[/URL]

In civil court, it happens all the time ... all the time. Now, its kinda of expected I think. So why not in criminal cases too?

Witnesses for the state? They never get charged with perjury.

Good system, eh?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
In civil court, it happens all the time ... all the time. Now, its kinda of expected I think. So why not in criminal cases too?

Witnesses for the state? They never get charged with perjury.

Good system, eh?

I think its always been expected. By anybody with two or more brain cells, anyway. This is why, even under oath, a fact-finder, whether a judge or jury, has a function of figuring out the facts.

If everybody or almost everybody could be relied on to tell the truth, the jury could almost dispense with "sifting the facts".
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
If everybody or almost everybody could be relied on to tell the truth, the jury could almost dispense with "sifting the facts".

A trial is not directly related to finding the truth ... just to examine the facts presented to them and see if the state has met the proof needed to support the required elements of the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What bothers me most is not the fact they lie, they do. But the fact that the courts are willingly rely on lies for convictions. We are just fodder for the system.

I would not vote for a local judge running for Superior court when I heard he was a cop and then worked in the prosecutors office.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
A trial is not directly related to finding the truth ... just to examine the facts presented to them and see if the state has met the proof needed to support the required elements of the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, actually...:)


Jury trials in English law have their roots in fact-finding. During the reign of Henry II in the second half of the 1100's, Henry was looking to expand his control. He sent royal judges on circuit to the various places where the lords' settled criminal matters among the people under their control. The royal judges were commanded to bring together 12 or 20 jurors who were presumed to have personal knowledge of the facts behind the case. The jurors were charged with speaking the truth of the matter. So, once upon a time, the jurors were not only the triers of the facts insofar as they had accepted or rejected what they heard about the case long before the royal judge ever arrived on circuit, but the jurors brought the facts to court and were the witnesses. I got this all from a very educational book that is still in print: Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination by Leonard Levy. The book won a Pulitzer Prize in history. I cannot over-emphasize the value of this book if one wants to understand the right against self-incrimination.

Also the word verdict comes from Latin roots meaning speak (dict) truth (ver).

This next is not conclusive, but weighs heavily. If you read enough court opinions, you find that appeals courts don't (or aren't allowed?) to review findings of fact. They'll review all to hell various applications of law and procedure, but won't touch findings of facts.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The Lathrup Village officer gave Suh the ticket on Nov. 15 for driving without due care and caution, but Police Chief William Armstrong told The Associated Press on Tuesday he was not sure the citation would hold up.

The chief was awaiting a call back from the city attorney to discuss the case, which he said was ''in limbo.''

''From my bird's eye view, taking a quick glance at it, I'd say the charge doesn't fit,'' Armstrong said after watching video footage of Suh's driving that day. ''Just looking at the tape, Mr. Suh was traveling faster than the cars around him, but I don't think it was to the extent of driving without due care and caution.'' .... http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lions-suh-gets-traffic-ticket-163942331--nfl.html



Should add this guy? lol
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
This next is not conclusive, but weighs heavily. If you read enough court opinions, you find that appeals courts don't (or aren't allowed?) to review findings of fact. They'll review all to hell various applications of law and procedure, but won't touch findings of facts.

All that latin and ya still don't know that judges certainly do review the facts to see if the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. True, a hard standard to overcome.
 

Beantownfan321

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
39
Location
Space Coast FL
I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
http://www.policeone.com/officer-mi...cy-creates-permanent-lying-list-for-officers/

The city's public-safety officials consider lying to be a cardinal sin for officers. They say it should almost always result in termination.
But officers don't always lose their jobs for being untruthful, and until recently, the city didn't keep track of those who lie and stay on the force. The lack of oversight has allowed some dishonest officers to receive promotions. Officials say they probably have testified in criminal cases without disclosing the transgression, a violation of federal and state law.
It wasn't until last year that the Police Division created a list of untruthful cops. The Dispatch obtained the list under the Ohio Open Records Act. Police Chief Kimberley Jacobs said she is reviewing the list, which was put together before she was named the division's leader in April.
"Our integrity must be unquestioned, so anybody that damages that integrity by being untruthful is looking at the loss of their position," Jacobs said. "I can't say strongly enough how extremely important it is to maintain our integrity with the public."


Why is this NOT done in every State in the Republic? I applaud the idea, I am surprised it took fifty years(really?), but I think it should be covered under FOI requests and not kept to just LEOs.

So basically they already had the list for some time yet they were not using it for its intended purpose? This seems like nothing more than a PR stunt to me. Hopefully I am wrong and there is atleast one department/office that still has moral obligations to uphold.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.
Thanks for the insight. Why the qualifier "on a offical form, of any kind." Should not the zero tolerance policy be applied to lying, without qualifiers?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I'll agree with most of the comments here. I'll not go into detail on that though.

What I will say, is good for this department. And I will also agree that this list should be made public.

The department I work for has a zero tolerance for lying on an official form, of any kind.

If only every department had this policy, and was open and transparent about it.

+1

Our local deputies and PD don't feel this way and with help from prosecutors and judges protect them.


Thanks for the insight. Why the qualifier "on a offical form, of any kind." Should not the zero tolerance policy be applied to lying, without qualifiers?

It's those forms that are used against you. Of course testimony should be included in this.

I don't think Brady even limits it to lying but also misleading, yet in the police reports I have read, the use of misleading boiler plate words are the norm, meant to taint you and against a judge and jury.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Funny story:

My best friend is defense counsel in a criminal case, the actual details of which are irrelevant to the story.

Cop gets on the stand and testifies to various things.

My friend: "Officer X, have you ever been convicted of perjury?"

Officer X turns white and gets the deer in the headlight look.

Officer X: "Bbbbut that was a sealed juvenile conviction, you can't use that against me!"

My friend: "No, not as a defendent. But as a WITNESS..." :D

The defendent was acquitted.
 

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
All that latin and ya still don't know that judges certainly do review the facts to see if the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. True, a hard standard to overcome.
Appellate courts also review mixed questions of fact and law.

(One week until my appeal brief is due. One element is the prosecution failed to discover Brady/Giglio lying LEOs.)
 
Top