First, I want to link to a page that the observer should read well. Then I will comment about the current state of affairs in the realm of police
perjury. Perjury is widespread and accepted as a normal means of convicting the ' factually guilty ' which is anyone the officer believes to be
guilty of a crime. Since Federal law says that a perjurious statement must be ' material ' to the case, it leaves the individual cop deciding what
is ' material ' and what is not. This gives them the ability to lie without conscience.
Perjury a Nationwide Epidemic
Alan Dershowitz, Havard Law Professor and defense counsel for many years layed it all out in the above linked article:
· No felony is committed more frequently in the United States than the genre of perjury and false statements
· Criminal cases often are decided “according to the preponderance of perjury”
· Police perjury in criminal cases is so pervasive that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year
testifying about drug arrests” alone
· The most heinous brand of lying (perjury by police officers) is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or execution
of an innocent person
· Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct,
but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully
· Police Officers are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy
· Police perjury is not anecdotal. Many commission reports prove rampant abuses in police departments throughout the United States
· Judges and prosecutors tolerate if not encourage police lying in court all in the name of convicting the factually guilty
· According to the Mollen Commission the practice of police falsification is so common that it has spawned its own word – testilying
o Officers commit perjury to serve what they perceive to be “legitimate” law enforcement ends
o In the viewpoint of most police officers, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be
· When prosecutors are preparing for a trial, they often arrange “dry runs” as part of the trial preparation procedure. Frequently,
prosecutors skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness
o As a result, impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony (commit perjury) to the requirements of the law
· There are hundreds of thousands of police officers in the United States today that break the law and commit felony perjury as a calculated,
premeditated offense designed to undercut the constitutional rights of unpopular defendants."
The last paragraph above should be read by my opponent very slowly. It is NOT a random event for a cop to lie on the stand, it is an expected and
everyday occurence that is encouraged by Prosecutors and police superiors. The academies teach young cop's to ask devious and misleading questions to
gain consent, and to lie at will. Cop's have the LEGAL right to lie to the people they ' serve ' and they do so all the time. The police also have
NO legal requirement to tell us the truth. So if a citizen does not know the facts, he may well become a victim of police skullduggery in the name of
' crime prevention'.
" Of all the instances when and where police officers commit perjury, the enforcement of drug laws top the list. And when it comes to discovering
illegal drugs in a defendant’s vehicle, residence, possessions, or on their person, police have no fear or deterrent against conducting illegal
searches and committing felony perjury; first by filing a false sworn affidavit, then by testilying in court.
Examples of this sort of felony perjury are also found in the Mollen Report. Examples are as follows:
When officers unlawfully stop and search a vehicle because they believe there are drugs in it, officers will falsely claim in police reports
and under oath that the car ran a red light or committed some other traffic violation
Once pulled over, the police officer will search the occupants of the vehicle as well as the vehicle – with or without consent – although
the police officer will always indicate that they had consent
If consent is adamantly opposed by the occupants, the police officer will report, under oath, that the contraband was in plain view
To conceal an unlawful search that does not involve a vehicle, police officers have been taught to report and testify that they saw a bulge in
the person’s pocket or saw drugs and money changing hands
To justify unlawfully entering a residence where officers believe drugs or cash can be found, cops commit felony perjury by claiming that they
had information from an unidentified civilian informant.
From the same report:
"Are police officers in South Carolina falsifying documents, conducting illegal searches, and lying under oath? Bearing in mind the information
contained in the Mollen Report and the testimony of Alan Dershowitz, here are a few examples taken from sworn affidavits made by police officers of
the Charleston Police Department and the North Charleston Police Department between September 1, 2005 and January 31, 2006. Each involves an arrest
for violating South Carolina drug laws. Only the police department and complaint number will be listed in the following examples, as these are
ongoing criminal cases:
Charleston Police Department
Complaint #: 0521531 – Defendant was observed driving his 1995 Toyota Pickup (SC 587 XXX) in a high drug area, and was approached by an unknown
black male, who then appeared to engage the defendant in a hand to hand transaction. The vehicle left the parking lot and was stopped for the
suspicious activity, as well as a non-functioning tag light. The defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the vehicle.
– If you live in what police consider a high drug area, shaking hands could be considered suspicious activity – particularly if you’re a black
male. Note that the arresting officer included a non-functioning tag light to justify the stop. By all accounts, the defendant had .8 grams of
coc aine in his vehicle, and knew it was there, so why would he consent to having his vehicle searched?
Complaint #: 0521634 – Officer J. XXXXX conducted a traffic stop of a silver Ford Winstar, (SC 759 XXX) in which defendant was a passenger. After
asking the defendant to exit the vehicle, and receiving consent to search her purse, Officer XXXXX located a white rock-like substance, which
field-tested presumptive for coc aine base substance inside the purse. Officer XXXXX additionally located a crack pipe in side pocket of purse.
- If making a routine traffic stop, why was the passenger even spoken to by the arresting officer? Why was the passenger asked to exit the vehicle,
and who in their right mind consents to the search of their purse if they know that they have crack coc aine and a crack pipe in their purse?
Nobody consents to such a search.
Complaint #: 0523979 – In that defendant did have a clear small zip lock style bag protruding from the band of his baseball style hat which
contained (5) off white-in-color rock like items which field tested presumptive as coc aine base by Cpl. J. XXXXX with a street value of ($100).
– Not only is this sworn statement suspicious, but the zip lock bag seems to be defying the exact laws of gravity. The arresting officer would have
us to believe that the defendant was walking the street with $100 worth of crack in plain view as casually as carrying a cigarette behind one’s
North Charleston Police Department
Complaint #: 05037505 – Having received a tip from Crime Stoppers of illegal drug activities from Room 223 of Super 8 Motel, Cpl. D. XXXXXX made
contact with the defendant and asked for and received consent to search the defendant’s room for illegal drugs. During the consented search, Cpl.
XXXXXX located approximately 3.4 grams of off white rock-like substance in a plastic baggie, in the nightstand drawer near the defendant’s bed.
Again, who in their right mind gives consent to such a search if they know that they have 3.4 grams of coc aine in the drawer of their
nightstand? There is simply no plausible explanation for such consent.
The police today see themselves as ' handcuffed ' and held back by the civil rights law and the Constitutional Rights we still have left. They see
' little white lies ' on the stand as actually ' good ' police work because in the end, they get the conviction they so desperately want, and the
end justifies the means. At least to a cop willing to cross the line, and most all of them will and do so regularly and with no feeling of having done
And finally, another from the Los Angeles times by veteran police Chief Joseph D. McNamara:
"Are the nation's police officers a bunch of congenital liars?
Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their
careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of
law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.
These are not cops who take bribes or commit other crimes. Other than routinely lying, they are law-abiding and dedicated. They don't feel lying
under oath is wrong because politicians tell them they are engaged in a "holy war ' on crime"
More to come next segment.