We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former detective testifies

Click here for more information.

reply to post by AK907ICECOLD


Dude I think you misread his statement.

He was not promoting the idea of arrest quotas. He is against it.

He said "What's wrong IS arrest quotas."

Not ...What's wrong with arrest quotas?

Try and read more carefully so you can direct your anger at the proper people.

I so understand this. A few years ago my pc was stolen at Circut City. Long story short they called the police and asked me questions and the cop asked if I was drinking.. I explained I have muliple sclerosis and that was why I was slurring I had not been drinking... He then said I needed to do a breathalizer test I said ok the thing that made me upset is that he made me take it in front of the entire store I asked if we could go in an office he said no one was looking and I said the whole blank blank store was staring at me then he could get me on slander made me do the test three times in a row. When it showed I was sober he became upset he really wanted to nail me.

reply to post by Sharonbaron


At least he didn't plant drugs on you.

If it was that dirtbag from the OP you might have found yourself with some real embarrassment.

I hope the cop ended up leaving you alone after you proved your sobriety.

Originally posted by paddz420
Drug laws are a waste of time. There would be no innocent people in jail if we got rid of the drug laws & there would be no cops meeting quotas if there were no drug laws. All the drug laws do is persecute the poor. Fascism, Classism Collapse System.

Peace Out

Dude, much love, I've got your back any day

Star for you, All it is for is for our leaders to create profit, jobs, and destruction to our society

Thank you

[color=#FFFF00]Please Don’t Discuss Personal Use Or Arrest Records

Just to clarify...

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances: Due to abuse of the subject matter by some (promoting various aspects of personal use, and discussing actual personal use), no new topics on this subject are allowed in any form.

Note that we try not to slam people for honest mistakes, but giving us any grief over enforcing this policy has, can and usually does result in immediate account termination.

Also, ATS is not a court of law, and not a place to discuss or refute one's personal involvement in drug charges or any other alleged crimes. That is not for us to debate here.

So let's please stay focused on the topic, which is the criminal misconduct on the part of law enforcement officers who plant drugs to make false arrests.

If anyone has any questions about anything I have posted here, please don't hesitate to let me know, but do NOT argue about ATS policy in this thread.

Thanks.

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD
UH oH, another delete, Thanks you ATS

It's a big place and there are a lot of rules, but it's great to have you here and I hope you won't take any of it the wrong way.

Now if you'll excuse me, I really shouldn't be off-topic like this.

So this debate reminds me of another case that brought up the subject of police planting evidence.

The OJ Simpson murder trial. Now, personally I believe OJ was involved in the crime some way. But I also feel that the police might have planted evidence to help support their case.

So I know from personal experience that the police will sometimes confiscate contraband without issuing a citation or making an arrest. In that case there is no evidence or record of the material or substance being confiscated.

When an officer makes these kinds of judgment calls the arrest a person or let them go with a warning then they are not doing their job correctly. If one person commits a crime they should be treated the same as the next.

When do circumstances play a part in the decisions that police make. Suppose they raid a drug dealers house and they are too late in gaining entry. The drug dealer has flushed all the narcotics down the toilet and is laughing at the police and telling them ...

"Haha [snip] pigs I just flushed it .. now you don't have any evidence."

So the police officer thinks to himself ... "I want to get this bastard"... and he remembers that he just busted some kid with a crack pipe and there is crack residue in that pipe. He decided to let the kid go with a warning but confiscated the pipe. So the officer decides to plant false evidence against the known drug dealer using the kids crack pipe. He now can arrest the guy on drug charges and in his mind he is preventing crime and getting this dealer off the streets.

It is still wrong no matter how you look at it. But you can see that he had good intentions and the guy who gets arrested might be a really bad guy and now has an arrest record.

Any thoughts on this type of scenario or the OJ Simpson case?

I figured this was already well known. Id imagine that most of these don't hold up in court anyway.You need a cop to come out and say it happens before you believe it? Then you're an idiot.(no,thats not directed at you,op) That's like someone from the government saying 'hey,here's the proof we killed kennedy'.Then acting surprised.This isn't news. Just saying. Common sense people.

Well I have a short story about my recent run-in with the local cops, grab some popcorn.


Short version:
Cops picked me up for no reason as I walked home with my brother about 9:45pm after a good night out from a hard week of work. They told him to leave and took me without charging for anything. An altercation occured in my holding cell after a REALLY drunk redneck was brought in to my cell, even though there was 17 other unoccupied cells remaining. I ended up hitting the guy and cops finally got what they wanted - me charged. They didn't show up for court, the man I hit didn't and Crown was not impressed. I walked with no charges or damage to my record, but cost me 3000 dollars which I still pay today.

Long version:
Something like this happened to me a little over a year ago, but wasn't drug related. I was racially profiled by the cops, this usual happens in my area because we have very few "non-whites" living about, as me and my light skin colored real-blood brother (i'm dark skinned Ojibwe Indian, brother is a light, near white) were walking home after a few drinks in the bar. It was only 9:45pm. The cops stopped us both and did the usual "give us your ID and what are you doing?". Anyway, we comply and sure enough, they run a background on me, but not my brother. Nothing came back, but they decided I was "too drunk to walk home" and took me to the city cells. They told my brother to litterally, "Eff off, or we'll arrest you for disturbing the peace ... blah blah"

No biggie, they do this to me often. But what they should not have done was throw an extremely intoxicated, drunk redneck into the same cell I was in, and to boot, I was sleeping for about 4 hours before this guy was brought in. The redneck started to poke jokes at me, flame me and even threatened me. I asked the guard on duty to get me moved to a new cell to sleep out my remaining 4 hours. They denied my request and the redneck got even more obnoxious towards me for requesting this, so I finally warned him to not talk to me or I'll .... do something rash to him.

Not 2 minutes later, I open-hand slapped the guy (really hard; my hand was sore for days later) and only 2 seconds after, 3 cops came barging in with clubs and cuffs. I was FINALLY charged by the cops. I gave in to what they wanted, but I had no idea this was their agenda. Also considering they have 4 "drunk tanks" they could have moved to which the only one used was the one I was in, as well 16 other normal cells of which only 2 were taken, none of this would have happened.

So I end up paying 3000 dollars for a lawyer to battle this in court. No cops showed up. The man I hit never shown up. No witnesses. Nothing. There was video and audio evidence against me, yet I still walked away without charges. But at what price? 3000 freaking dollars. I tell you, Crown was not happy about this - the local cops wasting precious court time.

Cops will do ANYTHING thesedays to make their quota. Shame on them. Thats my recent incident, although it was over a year ago. Too bad nothing can be done, or can there..?

Fresh Nugget.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The police should not plant evidence in any case. Never.

The carpet, toilet etc can always be checked forensically in this case, and it is possible to verify if criminal has destroyed evidence.

The problem is police acting in vengeance, rather than as protectors.

reply to post by vedatruth


I agree with you. The police should never even consider planting evidence.

I was just describing a scenario where a cop doesn't necessarily have to planting evidence to meet a quota or with bad moral intentions.

However, it is completely wrong. The ends does not justify the means.

Any group of people are going to include some bad people. I don't care if it is a church, a bowling team, police department or a book club. People are People! Bad people in a police department will happen and there is never enough effort to clean up their ranks. Just the idea of quotas for arrests, traffic tickets or anything else is just wrong on any level.
This is why I believe people who video police in action should never be harassed. We need more accountability, not less. This subject, of course, requires another thread.

If this is happening in NY, think about how many other cities across our nation it is happening in. Why do we always see minorities in poverty ridden areas going to jail? Not saying that all of them are not guilty, but this must happen a lot. The "law enforcement" has to meet a certain quota right? Do you think they are going to the affluent areas and picking on those guys? Ahhh...probably not!

Lets just speculate for minute...how about we say that 50 percent of the "quota" that they need to reach on a monthly basis are people that are actually guilty. That is a high number. So that would mean that the other 50 percent of people are not guilty.

The government has painted a picture of minorities that seem all too true to the American eye. Not to pass judgement, but most of these guys aren't even smart enough to run such HUGE operations. In my eyes, it's all a set up. You put a bunch of ants in a glass box, and one by one choose as to when you want to stomp on them...

reply to post by Historymajor


I agree with your overall sentiment on the issue but I will have to disagree with your estimate that only 50% of the arrests are guilty. I think that is much too low. I'd guess it's closer 75% and that may be too low.

It would be interesting to get the statistics on arrests vs. convictions and also how many of those convictions were people who plead guilty.

I do not know how the quotas are based. But I don't believe they are based on just arrests alone. You need convictions. Otherwise the city DA office might decide to investigate the police dept. for all the dismissed cases coming their way. If you are a city attorney you don't want to have to review hundreds of frivolous cases. It will make your dept look bad if 50% of all charges are dismissed before going to court..

The additional money for the police dept, based on a rise in crime rates may come from the state legislature. But the District Attorney is in a sense the watchdog of the police dept. At least one would hope that they are doing their job properly. And from my experience they don't like having to dismiss cases. And they probably hate doing all the extra paper work from unjustified arrests.

Finally there would be a large increase in false arrest lawsuits. I know that there are lots of real criminals out there robbing, stealing, selling drugs, rapists and murderers. Yes, sometimes an innocent person is arrested. It's even more awful to think that an innocent person was arrested and convicted based on false evidence planted by a police officer. But I don't think we should exaggerate the problem. 50% just sounds way too high IMO

I feel that anybody wrongfully put in prison or jail should be compensated. They have lost a part of their life that they can never get back plus there will always be doubt in other peoples minds as to whether or not that person can ever be trusted.