Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Hacker Catches Cops Who Hid Arrest Tapes

An anonymous reader writes "In 2008, the Seattle Police illegally arrested security consultant Eric Rachner for refusing to show ID. After Rachner filed a formal complaint, he was prosecuted for obstructing, and the police claimed that videos of the arrest were unavailable — until Rachner's research uncovered proof that the police had the videos all along." It's an interesting story of how he figured out how the system in use by Seattle police automatically tracks deletion, copying, or other uses of the recorded stream.

34 of 597 comments (clear)

  1. Obstruction of justice by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't the officers in this case be charged with obstruction of justice?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Obstruction of justice by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And falsifying police document. Perhaps perjury as well, if the cops told this to a judge. This is one of those times when "making an example" is the right answer. Otherwise, wtf should we trust the police?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Obstruction of justice by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So they can be sentenced to one month's vacation (with pay)?

    3. Re:Obstruction of justice by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. They should be charged with making a false arrest. They should be suspended without pay until the trial is resolved, and someone should make sure they aren't put on the PBA payroll during that time. If they are found guilty, they should be fired. Not suspended, fired.

      The individuals in the police department that refused to release the video of the arrest -- on false pretenses, by the way -- should also be fired.

      Finally, the head of the police department in question should be fired.

      Cops who abuse their authority are despicable.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Obstruction of justice by Protoslo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are incorrect. While the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that in Washington, people are not required to identify themselves to the police, this is not true nationally. You are not required to produce ID, but in most states you can be required to state your name.

      Rachner impressively knew about this rights in Washington, but you should be careful to be as informed as he was before challenging the police in another state.

      As for obstruction, I agree; the only obstacle is finding a prosecutor to enforce the law against the police.

    5. Re:Obstruction of justice by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They protect the cops because the cops work with them and help them railro...er...get convictions.

    6. Re:Obstruction of justice by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cops in the US can usually claim Sovereign Immunity. Which is one reason I dislike the concept so very much. (Even the Magna Carta had - in its original form - that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases of rights violation.)

      I seriously doubt the cops will get punished, and quite possibly they'll never even have to stand trial. If there's an inquiry, it'll be internal and kept secret.

      The problem is that, ever since the days of the Wild West, cops have seen themselves as absolute authorities with total power over the citizenry, the laws and the very facts of the case.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Obstruction of justice by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, ONE person smacked ONE person in the face with a ball, and he wasn't either party.

      Not only wasn't he of that group, but the one who did the douchebaggery, didn't get arrested. The person they arrested for THAT (as opposed to refusing to show ID, and thus making it an illegal arrest) also didn't do anything.

      The guy IS a fucking hero. Not because of what happened before, but because he was willing to fight the fight all the way to the end instead of simply caving because it was too much trouble.

    8. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.

      No.

      Some other guy smacked one person in the face with a foam golf ball, by accident.

      The police arrested the wrong guy by mistake, for which he performed community service even though he didn't commit any crime.

      They also arrested one other person because he legally refused to disclose his ID or open his own wallet.

      The real problem is the police lied and withheld evidence that didn't support their case. That cannot be tolerated, and for that he is a hero.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    9. Re:Obstruction of justice by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself.

      No, they arrested him for frustrating and pissing them off. They charged him with obstruction of justice as their means of retaliation in an attempt to legally justify his arrest.

      Big difference.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    10. Re:Obstruction of justice by gangien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe getting a news story about it, made it worth it?

      Maybe just standing up for you rights, is worth it?

      People have given their lives for the sake of their rights, this guy gives up a weekend and 25 hundred bucks. I don't know how i would handle the situation, but i applaud him for standing up for his rights.

    11. Re:Obstruction of justice by pluther · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it would have been easier.

      We have rights because some people stand up for them, even when it's not the easiest thing to do.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    12. Re:Obstruction of justice by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we don't.

      Yes, we do. Anyone can be arrested for any reason. If there is no reason, they they are arrested for resisting arrest or obstruction of justice. All it takes for a resisting arrest charge is to give two conflicting orders, then arrest them when they ask for clarification or don't do both within 5 seconds.

      That people aren't arrested on a regular basis for no reason doesn't mean that any one person could be arrested for any invented reason at any time, and would likely end up convicted.

      For us to not be in a police state, we must require video for a conviction (shouldn't be hard since all cop cars have them now, and putting them on cops themselves would be trivial, though not cheap), and "resisting arrest" and "obstruction" would require that someone be convicted of a felony that was resisted or obstructed before the additional charges could be made. When "resisting arrest" is the only charge, it's absurd. They can't arrest you for resisting arrest because they didn't arrest you before you resisted, and if they didn't charge you with anything else, then they weren't arresting you at all when you resisted. Yet it's getting more common for any belligerent person to get arrested (and convicted) of resisting arrest when no arrest was being made.

      We are in a real police state now. The douchebaggery isn't isolated, it's systemic and pervasive. Almost all cops believe that "contempt of cop" is an arrestable offense, and the law lets them make up charges. Just because the rate of unjustified arrests, charges, and convictions is low doesn't mean that it isn't a system wide problem that could become worse at any time.

    13. Re:Obstruction of justice by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The underlying reality is he did not stand up just for his rights, he stood up and took the flack defending every bodies rights. A conscious personal sacrifice he made to protect others as he well knew he would likely suffer for it. What he did next was of far greater import, proving that the particular police administration would, lie and with hold evidence in order to protect illegal activities and obvious indication that a much deeper investigation is required of that particular police department.

      It is high time that all police officers carry smart phones with remote blue tooth video cameras fitted to their badges which must be on display at all times whilst on duty. Two functions, one as a means by which to reference the law, which they should do for any citizen upon request and, the second the live recording and transmittal of any arrest or similar interaction with any person.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Obstruction of justice by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, in the 50's the vast majority of Americans in this country wished to differentiate ourselves from communist and totalitarian countries where the phrase "papers please" was as common as hello.

      How quickly we forget the danger of a government with to much control and police that arrest and detain people for nothing more than annoying the officer.

    15. Re:Obstruction of justice by moortak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assume the worst. Even if he had been the guy who hit the passerby, and if it had been intentional, and if it had been a brick instead of a foam ball, it wouldn't change the facts. He wasn't arrested for any form of impact with anything. He was arrested for something that in that locale is not a crime. When his lawyer filed a valid discovery request the cops lied and claimed the tapes did not exist. Repeat the process with an open records request. Now we as a society have solid evidence of police misconduct, that if the article is accurate, was not an isolated incident. Someone who brings that to light and allows us to fix it is a hero, even if it all started over drunken douchebaggery. It can be really hard to catch police for misconduct if you require all witnesses to their actions to be free from any taint.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    16. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was little kid, the cold war was still on. So in civics class at school, they taught us the various reasons why America was better than the Soviet Union. One of those reasons, of course, was that you didn't need to carry ID papers around with you for normal life.

      Damn, I'm too young (32) to feel like an old man...

    17. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Breaking the law is not the cops job. If the cop did not know that citizens are not required to state their name or provide ID on demand, he should have since knowing that IS in fact the cops job. The end result is that one incompetent cop is marginally more competent than he was prior to the "stunt".

      For the record, standing on ones rights is not a "stunt". Standing on ones rights is the duty and privilege of citizens of free nations.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
  2. A few bad apples by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...

    seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

    1. Re:A few bad apples by JDeane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not quite sure to be honest, it seems like they would be the first ones to want the slime off the force.

      I mean if you can't trust the guy to be honest and fair out on the streets, do I really want this dude "serving and protecting" my community where I live?

    2. Re:A few bad apples by pwnies · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you entirely understood what he was saying...

    3. Re:A few bad apples by jDeepbeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...

      seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

      Just for the record, any cop who protects dishonest cops, is also dishonest.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    4. Re:A few bad apples by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trust who? Other cops or other people? Because they don't seem to trust anyone outside their group, and then defend the indefensible. Not writing tickets for certain individuals as "a professional courtesy" is corruption. No one is above the law.

    5. Re:A few bad apples by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) IMHO, (and I grew up on military bases), military cops are even worse than public cops. Maybe you were different (I don't know, so I won't say either way) but I only met maybe three MPs in 21+ years that didn't have Barney Fife syndrome.

      2) "we take care of our own" Then you are part of the problem. "Tak[ing] care of your own" fosters distrust with the population you serve. Is it better to have everyone in the community you are in thinking of you as part of the problem, or to know that your department is, on the whole, very professional and very ethical, and therefore they are willing to work with you to get the job done? There's a reason people don't want to talk to the cops -- they don't trust them, and when you "take care of your own", you show that people are right not to trust the cops.

      3) "... and deliver our own form of punishment." That's called "vigilantism", and it's illegal whether you wear a badge or not. What you are saying by your actions, therefore, is "the system is good enough for you, because you are civilian, but it's not good enough for us because we're cops." That's B.S., sorry.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:A few bad apples by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make it sound like they are fighting a life and death battle every day. Police officer doesn't even rank in the top ten most dangerous professions. The whole "I have to treat them well because they might have my back someday" concept almost never happens. My friend's wife is a rookie cop only two months in, primarily working traffic duty, and has the attitude already. They teach it in the freakin' police academy. She certainly doesn't yet live in a world any different than I do other than the fact that she can screw with people with impunity.

      Professions that you are more at risk of dying:
      Logger
      Fisherman
      Pilot
      Iron worker
      Garbage Collector
      Farmer
      Roofer
      Elecrician
      Truck Driver
      Taxi Driver

      A cop is most likely to die on duty in a common traffic accident. Not pursuing a suspect, but just driving around. They don't write tickets to other cops or families of other cops simply so that they won't get tickets themselves. It is 100% pure abuse of power. The story made up to defend it is only to not appear like jerks and to get chicks.

  3. Carefully parsed language by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The department responded: "These recordings are both past our retention period and can no longer be obtained. Please note that the majority of 911 calls and videos are retained for a period of ninety (90) days."

    "They just flat out said they didn't have it," said Rachner.

    Actually, that's not what they said. They said they can no longer be obtained. They didn't say they were destroyed. They didn't say *who* could no longer obtain them. Are they saying "You can't obtain them" (because it's past 90 days and that's our policy) or "We can't obtain them"? (because they were destroyed). The language is intentionally unclear. They *implied* that the recordings had been destroyed, and that the police themselves could no longer obtain them, but that's not what they actually said.

    Either way, this is a good lesson for those /.ers who maintain that you don't have to show a cop your ID in the U.S. when asked (that you don't need "papers" in the U.S.). That may *technically* be true, but it can still cost you a weekend in jail and a $3500 legal bill if you actually pull that shit with a real cop.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Suprise, surprise by straponego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ANY time the cops, spooks, politicians, corporations-- anybody, really-- claims to have "lost" the evidence, they are lying or they deliberately destroyed it. Like when the CIA, at the behest of Bush, just happened to lose hundreds of torture tapes after they'd been ordered by a court to preserve them. Like they did with much of the Abu Ghraib evidence.

    Police in particular can NOT be trusted to police themselves. The few honest cops are often threatened by the rest. Rat on us and good luck when you call for backup...

  5. Re:There's a better charge.. by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more I read the article (yes, some of us do), the more obvious that this is a systemic issue with the Seattle police dept, and this was a bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  6. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by entrigant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people don't need to defend their rights because they willingly give them away.

    Fixed that for you.

  7. Re:Wow, what a waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they spent months, thousands of dollars in defense, thousands in city funds all over the fact that some drunk tool refused to tell the cop who he was?

    No, you moron. They spent that money because the police made an arrest under false pretenses, then tried to cover it up by lying about the presence of evidence.

  8. Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at the Hans Reiser case, or the Terry Childs case. On Slashdot we see tons of support for them, claiming they couldn't have done it, are being railroaded, etc, etc. They get consideration that people in other professions don't. A circling of the wagons.

    It seems to be human nature.

  9. Get enough people like you together... by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And pretty soon you have no rights left to give away.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  10. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Smart? Try lazy, cowardly, or more likely just plain apathetic. We need more people like Rachner to push back, to take stands. He uncovered a potentially huge conspiracy to withhold evidence from trials. His stubborn and clever tenacity held the system accountable. People like him make the system wary enough so that it can't deal with all the 'smart' people in too harsh a manner. They have it easy because some people aren't afraid to do the right thing, even it's hard.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  11. Listen to the audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have any of you posting listened to the audio? Especially the ones claiming they were a group of 'drunken douchebags'?

    If you listen to the audio you'll notice that nobody was loud, obnoxious or incredibly rude. Eric sounds a bit curt, but he's defending his rights against an office who clearly is uniformed of the laws or has gotten too used to getting his way because he is a police office.

    But honestly, I don't fault the officer either. He was as polite as can be expected and I believe he thought that he was in the right.

    The this should have gone down, Eric gets arrested, police realize "Oh crap, you shouldn't have done that." Eric gets compensated for his attorney fees, the police officer gets sent to additional training and a memo is written to the rest of the department reminding them of how the laws ACTUALLY WORK.

    That would have been justice, but we live in a society where everyone is out for blood for the most minor injustices and neither side is willing to say "oops, we screwed up."

    Everything that happened afterward could have been avoided by simply saying "we were wrong, we're sorry" and then providing the necessary training to the police force so that they understand that citizens DO have the right to refuse to identify themselves.