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.

Comments

Obstruction of justice

[Enderandrew]

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

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Pharmboy]

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?

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Enderandrew]

Police officers in theory are not above the law. They are supposed to be held accountable to the same laws as us. If they lied in an investigation and intentionally withheld evidence, they should be charged with obstruction of justice.

They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself. Every lawyer on the planet tells you never to talk to a cop for any reason. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I understand the logic behind it. However you can't just arrest someone for not talking to a cop.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[MindlessAutomata]

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

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Yold]

They are police... so yes they should be charged... but I'm sure that "an internal review concluded that no police policies were violated".

This shit happens every day. NYPD stole hundreds of bicycles today, this innocent teenager was arrested for "resisting arrest" after being mistaken for a burglar, and of course this is what happens when you videotape the police. We live in a police state, plain and simple.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Protoslo]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[amiga3D]

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

Re:Obstruction of justice

[jd]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Chyeld]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Anonymous Psychopath]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[v1]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[mea37]

First of all, that doesn't matter. Even if he was in fact engaged in criminal activity, that doesn't nullify his civil rights. You can argue about how exactly violation of civil rights shuld be treated. You can argue about how exactly a liar covering for someone who violates civil rights should be treated. There is no validity to arguing about the behavior of the person whose rights were violated, however. If he was doing something criminal, then that makes police interferance with his rights even worse - because that would mean he'd likely have been able to walk away from criminal charges.

Second, your portrayal of his behavior does not match the facts presented. They were not "drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls". They were drunkenly playing with foam golf balls, and a person (which is different from "people") was accidentally hit (by someone who was not amongh those arrested).

Moreover, your claim that they hecked the "people" they hit requires proof. The police report said they were heckling the person that was hit, but it does not clarify what this means. The person who was hit with the ball was "only mad at the one guy" who hit the ball, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if any mass heckling of the sort you're portraying were going on. In fact, the person hit by the ball, based on his quotes, appears to agree that the police response wasn't justified.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Tawnos]

Not most states, only 24 have stop & identify statutes.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Tawnos]

Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Interoperable]

The recording is an interesting listen. It's clear that Rachner knew his rights, but also that the arresting cop didn't. The cop isn't grinding an ax or going out of his way to be unreasonable, he was just misinformed about the law (rather inexcusable for an officer). The two were chatting peacefully about the legality of the arrest; Rachner instructing the cop (correctly) about civil liberties and the cop politely disagreeing. Rachner obviously made a conscious choice to be arrested to get a chance to stand on the principle of the thing.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[eldepeche]

-1, White

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Zordak]

With the disclaimer that it's been a few years since I took torts and Con law (so take this with a grain of salt), sovereign immunity doesn't protect state actors from violations of civil rights. In fact, 42 USC 1983 specifically creates a federal cause of action for violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. And it's not limited to just federal actors. It's "any person" who "under color of [authority]" deprives a person of their federal civil rights. If I remember correctly, the theory behind this statute is that the federal government can waive the states' sovereign immunity under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, since it came after the 11th Amendment, which solidified the states' sovereign immunity. So assuming everything is as it's stated in the summary, Rachner would have a federal cause of action against the police department.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[PopeRatzo]

Police officers in theory are not above the law.

Maybe not, but apparently prosecutors are above the law.

The US Supreme Court, in a case heard in Nov 2009, whether prosecutors are immune from prosecution for framing someone. So if after an arrest, a prosecutor goes ahead with a case even knowing without a doubt that the defendant could not have committed the crime, he is immune from penalties, including civil. It stems from a 1978 case where a couple of guys, named McGhee and Harrington (both black), spent 25 years in prison for a murder that not only did they not commit, but the prosecutors knew they were innocent, fabricated evidence against, and had strong evidence against the guy (happened to be white) who DID commit the crime.

McGhee and Harrington went to the Supreme Court, not to get justice, but just to get the right to ask for justice. A decision has not yet come down, but smart money is on a 5-4 decision in favor of immunity for the corrupt prosecutors with the conservative justices coming down in favor of the prosecutors. Sickeningly, national prosecutors' organizations, as well as the Obama justice department, have sided with the prosecutors, saying that if prosecutors are worried about prosecution themselves, they will be afraid to prosecute vigorously. That's a strange argument, which I guess assumes that fabricating evidence is nothing more than "vigorous prosecution".

Thank god the ACLU has some very good people working this case. The only hope is that Antonin Scalia gets into some spoiled scungilli before the case is decided.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[HeronBlademaster]

Near the end, you can hear him carefully questioning the officer to make sure that he was in fact being arrested only for the refusal to show ID:

Rachner: "If I were to pull out my ID right now, would you let me go with no further questions?"
Cop: "I would have, but you're already under arrest."

Rachner was clearly making sure it was on the record that he was being arrested for refusal to show ID, and for no other reason, so they wouldn't able to go back and say "oh but we were arresting him for something else too, so it wasn't an illegal arrest". That supports what you inferred: he was making a conscious choice to let them arrest him so he could fight it later in court.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[YrWrstNtmr]

IMNAL = I Might Need A Lawyer?

Re:Obstruction of justice

[jaxtherat]

Okay, here are some contries where they don't give a shit about your passport (from personal experience):

- Poland
- Czech republic
- Norway
- Australia
- New Zealand

Re:Obstruction of justice

[MobyDisk]

I bet that cop won't do it again. And maybe others won't. Maybe if a few peopel stood up for their rights, we might all get them back.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[gangien]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[pluther]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[eldepeche]

I'll say it very slowly.

It
does
not
matter
if
the
accused
is
a
good
or
bad
guy.
It
is
completely
irrelevant.

Got it? You're attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested and then prevented from seeing exculpatory evidence. The story is that he happened to have the smarts to discover and request the log file associated with that evidence. The story is that the police department lied about the continued existence of the video and audio recordings.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Tawnos]

Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."

Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio:
Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

etc

The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[v1]

"obstruction of justice" is one of those "bad laws". It's a catch-all, that any cop with an agenda can twist to make whatever you happen to be doing, illegal. "Failure to obey an officer of the law" is another good one. With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.

Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[moortak]

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.

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Low Ranked Craig]

So what? I mean, really, so-fucking-what? The illegal problem is of epidemic proportions here. I've experienced it first hand on numerous occasions; just last month I was at the hospital with my grandmother and withing 10 minutes, 2 separate people came into the emergency room with no ID (no Drivers license, no state ID, no green card, nothing) and no insurance so they get treated on the state's dime and not even a billing address to send a bill.

The feds are clearly too engrossed in courting a potential major voting block to do anything about it. I say good job to the AZ legislature. It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal. This applies to everybody. Now obviously, the majority of illegals will be Mexican or Central American in origin: It's not like we have a bunch of illegal Canadian's down here, eh, but that doesn't make it racist in any way shape or form.

I'll save you the trouble of searching the internet for the bill. Here it is, it's not that long: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf I don't see anything in there about Mexicans, do you?

Re:Obstruction of justice

[Dr Damage I]

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.

A few bad apples

[BigHungryJoe]

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

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

Re:A few bad apples

[JDeane]

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?

Re:A few bad apples

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I really wish I thought it was a ratio of 99% to 1%, but the lines are certainly not clear cut. I know quite a few cops. My brother used to be a cop. The profession attracts people with particular mindsets; the fearful, sadists, people with too much testosterone, people who are emotionally underdeveloped and who have seen too many action movies. When you're talking to 5 cops and 3 of them tell you the reason they went into police work was because they wanted to shoot someone without going to jail, well you've got to figure something.

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

I don't know any cops who don't break the law regularly. The attitude I've witnessed seems to be that they are above the law, at least to some extent. Since they all break the law they all worry some citizen will get them fired because of it, so they can all sympathize when one of them is accused. They try to cover one another's backs and give one another the benefit of the doubt instead of objectively looking into it.

If there were a culture of discipline and more strict adherence to the law than is the norm, things might be different. That's not how cops are hired in our society though or how they are taught in their on the job training. I'd love to meet a cop who refused to speed when not necessary for the job because of the principal of upholding the law, but I suspect such individuals make up less than 1% of cops, rather than 99%.

Re:A few bad apples

[waspleg]

because they're hated by a large majority of the population ... until they're needed. both sides are right, who hasn't seen a cop, not in uniform, flip their lights on to run a red light (and no they weren't going to an under cover investigation)? i know i have. i've been repeatedly harassed by police for how i was dressed, both as a kid and as an adult, and done experiments along these lines. clean cut, white, and in jeans and a tshirt? no problem. put on a trenchcoat and grow a beard? you're a criminal, i've even been stopped and questioned by police i knew and worked with. i work with police regularly and have for a long time.

i've received parking citations for my car facing the wrong way from a cop who lived in my neighborhood and who i had pictures of his cop car parked the same as i did, facing the wrong way for the lane he was in. i have worked 3rd shift hotels and dealt with racist security teams who were also off duty cops, most of them extremely corrupt and definitely only wearing a badge for power and the 'respect' it garners them (fear would be a better word), and i did see some women want to fuck them solely because of this too.

there are also a LOT of dishonest cops who abuse their power. many (most?) of them are little more than state sanctioned and funded gang members. not all but enough to notice. i forget the exact quote but a friend once said there are two kinds, the corrupt power hungry kind who mostly got picked on in school, and the superman wannabe kind who thinks they're the moral police and are totally smug about their decisions, i have seen the latter even disgusted by other police they worked with and said so but, no they would NEVER under any circumstances turn each other in; it's more of a talk behind their back or pat them on the shoulder and ask them to stop kind of thing. both are dangerous, both abuse power, some more than others.

generally if you are polite, so are they, sometimes they're good to have around but they're pretty much always like restless invading armies, if they don't have something else to do they will turn on you very *very* quickly. maybe YMMV, i live in the midwest and have lived in the city most of my life and my experiences have been consistent with police for more than 14 years.

Re:A few bad apples

[MindlessAutomata]

How is that different from being a gangster...?

Re:A few bad apples

[pwnies]

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

Re:A few bad apples

[jDeepbeep]

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.

Re:A few bad apples

[coaxial]

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.

Re:A few bad apples

[element-o.p.]

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.

Re:A few bad apples

[Jaime2]

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.

Carefully parsed language

[elrous0]

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.

Suprise, surprise

[straponego]

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...

There's a better charge..

[jcr]

"Conspiracy to deprive a person of their civil rights under color of authority". That's good for a ten-year stretch in fort leavenworth, if you can get a federal prosecutor to pursue it.

-jcr

Re:There's a better charge..

[Pharmboy]

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.)

Re:PAPERS PLEASE

[entrigant]

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

Fixed that for you.

Re:Wow, what a waste of time and money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why do geeks cricle the wagon?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Get enough people like you together...

[Concern]

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

"Stop and identify" statute

[SheeEttin]

If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.

According to Wikipedia, Washington does not have a "stop and identify" statute. So, unless there's other relevant legislation, no. You don't.

Re:PAPERS PLEASE

[ElectricTurtle]

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.

Re:Show ID

[The Moof]

You are factually incorrect. You are not required to produce any form of ID on demand in the United States

You are also factually incorrect. "Stop and Identify" laws vary by state.

Listen to the audio

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Show ID

[Jaime2]

Nope. Never talk to a cop. Ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Just a note

[Effugas]

OK, I was actually there. Not, "I heard this from a guy." I mean, I'm Dan Kaminsky, who's named in the article.

This was kind of a silly situation. One of the guys in our group hit the ball and it sort of sailed into this guy's face. It's a styrofoam ball, the maximum speed of those things is maybe ten miles an hour. It's actually slower than a Nerf ball.

Anyway, the guy who actually hit the thing was sort of an awkward nerd, and laughed about it nervously. You know in the article when the guy's like, it was just one guy? That's because it was just him. There was certainly no mob taunting.

Really, this was a bunch of nerds and burners. There was no damage going on, just general silliness and large scale commerce with institutions that were each contacted in advance and specially staffed to seat all of us. I don't think it'll happen again, and that's sort of sad. Urban golf was a lot of fun for everyone.