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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[MindlessAutomata]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.