It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
This happened what is months ago now. Nothing takes this long to figure out. It's likely intentional we have heard nothing at all.
they were at least smart enough to stop and say to themselves that they needed to spend time coming up with better bullsht or actually come out with the truth.
Bruce Gordon, Director of Communications
Jill Oliveira 651-793-2726
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 18, 2017
Update on BCA Investigation of Minneapolis Officer Involved Shooting
ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) today confirmed identity of the two Minneapolis Police Department officers involved in an officer involved shooting incident on Saturday, July 15. The BCA is conducting the investigation at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Officer Matthew Harrity has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for one year.
Officer Mohamed Noor has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for 21 months.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office on Monday evening confirmed the identity of the deceased as Justine Maia Ruszczyk, 40, of 5024 Washburn Avenue South in Minneapolis. Ruszczyk died of a single gunshot wound to the abdomen.
BCA agents interviewed Officer Harrity earlier today. Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor’s attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible.
According to the BCA’s preliminary investigation, officers Harrity and Noor responded to a 911 call from a woman now identified as Ruszczyk of a possible assault near her residence just after 11:30 p.m. Saturday. Officer Harrity was driving. Officer Noor was in the passenger seat.
The officers drove south through the alley between Washburn and Xerxes avenues toward West 51st Street in search of a suspect. All squad lights were off.
As they reached West 51st Street, Officer Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad. Immediately afterward Ruszczyk approached the driver’s side window of the squad. Harrity indicated that Officer Noor discharged his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the open driver’s side window.
The officers immediately exited the squad and provided medical attention until medical personnel arrived. Ruszczyk was pronounced dead at the scene. Both officers have been placed on standard administrative leave.
Officer Harrity told investigators that the officers saw an 18-25 year old white male who was bicycling eastbound on West 51st Street immediately before the shooting. This individual stopped at the scene and watched as the officers provided medical assistance to Ruszczyk. BCA agents would like to speak with this person, and anyone else who may have witnessed the incident. These individuals are asked to contact the BCA at 651-793-7000.
Crime scene personnel recovered a cell phone near the victim. No weapons were recovered.
Body cameras were not turned on until after the shooting incident. The squad camera was not turned on. Investigators are aware of no video or audio of the shooting. The BCA’s investigation does not determine whether a law enforcement agency policy was violated. That would be reviewed through the agency’s internal affairs process.
The BCA’s investigation into the shooting is active and ongoing. The BCA has briefed the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office about all evidence and information obtained in this investigation to date. As it does in all investigations, the BCA will present its findings without recommendations to the county attorney for review once the investigation is complete.
Frequently Asked Questions
What can BCA tell us about whether body camera policies were complied with in this case?
That question is in the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department.
Why was one officer interviewed, and the other was not?
Under the law, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension cannot compel the testimony of either officer.
How long will the investigation take?
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension understands the urgency of this case and is proceeding as rapidly as possible without compromising the integrity of the investigation. BCA agents conduct thorough, independent investigations of officer involved shooting incidents at the request of local law enforcement agencies across Minnesota.
Ruszczyk had called 911 to report a possible assault. What happened with that investigation?
That is a question that is in the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department.
The first officer was interviewed more than two days after the incident. Can officers talk with other people about the incident before talking to investigators?
Each agency has its own policies. There are no laws restricting an individual’s right to speak to others after an incident.
When can we get the video and other information from the investigation?
Under Minnesota law, certain information related to an investigation becomes public when all investigative and court processes are concluded. The law says investigative data is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.
What’s left to do in the investigation before it is turned over to the county attorney?
Unless someone else comes forward, the BCA does not have additional interviews scheduled at this time. Forensic testing is being completed and all evidence must be examined. It is common for a county attorney to request follow-up information when reviewing a case.
What is BCA responsible for and what is MPD responsible for?
The BCA’s investigation is limited to determining the facts of the shooting incident. Any review of department policy, including use of body cameras, would be done through the Minneapolis Police Department internal affairs process.
Why did the officer not agree to be interviewed?
That question should be directed to the officer or his attorney. The BCA cannot compel an officer to provide an interview.
Can the 911 call be released and by which agency?
Minnesota law (Minn. Statute 13.82 subd. 4) says the audio recording of a 911 call is not public; however, a written transcript of the audio recording is public, in this case, from the Minneapolis Police Department.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person.
Graham held that determining the "reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual... against the attempt at"countervailing"and under the guise of governmental interests, being at stake." These rights of which, are well documented, and established,of the people,by the people, and for the people,of the United States of America. It acknowledged, "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." However, it then noted, "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," the test's "proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case."
Because the petitioner claimed that it was his fourth amendment that was violated, the court had to look at the case with a different set of rules. Because of this, the court had to decide under the objective reasonableness of the case. The took into account whether the officers’ actions were reasonable in regard to the prior information the officer had witnessed. The court decided that the officers’ actions were appropriate for the circumstances and that the use of force was not malicious or purposely used to cause harm. 
The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for balancing an individual's rights and an officer's: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
The Graham Court cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." It also reinforced, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation."
The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause instead of the Fourth Amendment in analyzing excessive force claims: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims."
Since Graham, the lower federal courts have occasionally supplemented its three factors with such matters as whether a warrant was issued, the plaintiff resisted or was armed, more than one arrestee or officer was involved, other dangerous or exigent circumstances existed at the time of the arrest as well as the nature of the arrest charges and the availability of alternative methods of capturing or subduing a suspect.
originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Last update I could find was on August 8th and it just skirted over that the investigators obtained the training records of the officers involved.
I understand the need for detail, but is there enough strangeness going on around this case that it takes this long before they can resolve this case?
Either they are banking on our short memories and hoping we will forget about it, God knows there are enough cases in the past that we have allowed them to bury, or there is something really wrong about this case.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A prosecutor in Minnesota says he expects to decide by the end of the year whether to charge a Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot a woman who called 911 about a possible sexual assault in her neighborhood.
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said in a statement that his office has received public pressure to make a decision about the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old Australian native killed by Officer Mohamed Noor last month. Damond had called police to report a possible assault and met officers in an alley behind her home where Noor shot her. Noor has not commented publicly about why he shot Damond.
"We have received some e-mails and phone calls from members of the community demanding that we charge the officer immediately and ascribing all kinds of nefarious reasons as to why we haven't done so," Freeman said. "The truth is, we are following the same procedure we have with the three previous officer-involved shootings."
An investigation and review of a police shooting typically takes four to six months, Freeman said.
The fatal shooting of Damond, who was engaged to be married, has drawn international attention since the July 15 shooting.
Freeman broke precedent with the standard practice of having a grand jury to decide whether officers would be charged in police shootings when he reviewed the death of Jamar Clark, who was fatally shot by police in November 2015. The two officers involved in that case were not prosecuted.
"We will follow that practice in this case," Freeman said in his statement. "So, once the file is turned over to our office, I will thoroughly review the investigation with several of our most senior prosecutors and make a decision."
A TOP police officer has written an extraordinary letter in defence of the man who shot dead Australian woman Justine Damond.