Allegations of Misconduct by Santa Cruz City Police

Hi,
I saw this and wanted to point you to a video of the entire scene that may aide you. I could not see the reason he picked her out.
I have had small run ins with Officer Kine, he is a special kind of guy...

anyway go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/23/18474460.php

and watch video part one. I notice he places a paper bag on the roof of the car. By tomorrow the City's Website may show the arrest stats. Ill check and post here if I find it. Its under media release and what the newspapers use to pick and choose what pears under cops and courts. If he hit someone or something if I understand you right, that is an issue and you should file a complaint. You can do that at the police station. They may say he was under distress from those horrible drummers....

It happened so suddenly, i could find no reason why they picked her and arrested not a single other soul.

Tim Rumford

If another person (including a police officer) commits a crime in your presence (i.e. a hit and run), you have witnessed a misdemeanor. You can make a citizen's arrest. Which means, you contact a police officer, announce you have witnessed a crime and that you wish to make an arrest. That doesn't necessarily mean the cop will handcuff the person and take her into custody immediately (unless you're a merchant, and the suspect is a homeless musician, panhandler, or "criminal sidewalk sitter"). But customarily, he will write the person a citation (i.e. a notice to appear) in court to answer the charge. If the cop doesn't do that, the law specifies that you can take the person into custody yourself and either take the person to a cop or magistrate.

The point is that Hoppe knows full-well that even though he, Hoppe, didn't see the crime, the other person did. His responsibility was to advise the person reporting the crime that he could make a citizen's arrest. Instead he stated (truthfully but deceptively) that since he didn't see the crime, he, Hoppe, couldn't himself make the arrest. However, he could have taken the witness's citizen arrest of Officer Cline.

Cops, however, tend to stick together--even when one is charged with a crime and the other is on duty and required to respond to a citizen arrest and/or advise the citizen of her right to make a citizen's arrest.

So much for the fair, friendly, and trustworthy SCPD.

I watched that part of the video and unfortunately you see the bicyclist and the car, but the car blocks the view of the actual "hit and Run"

It does look like Officer Kline, I believe that is the proper spelling, used the twisting hand move to make her fall, although even that is difficult to see for sure.

Normally all arrests, even for a warrant, or drunk in public are made public on the City Police Website under media release, used for Cops and Courts. The arrest of Marry is not there, either is the complaint you filed -- although other minor arrests are.

This is a flagrant and purposeful act of keeping public information ...Public! The media release that was put out is attached to this comment.

Hello,
Looking back at the video which I will post a short moment of this even here shortly, you do plainly see the guy on the bike having a problem, and trying to tell the officer about it.

Tim

Here is the video of just the arrest or Marry, where you can see the incident in question.

Here is a picture from the scene. I post it as it shows the man with the bike pointing at Officer Kline, after looking down at his bicycle and trying to communicate with Kline.

I finally had a chance to look at the shaky video that was provided. I cannot believe that you guys honestly feel that a.) the woman was wrestled to the ground in a pain compliance hold (using RN's commentary on the video) and b.) that the officer purposefully drove over the bike to cause damage.

Here's what I saw: an officer arresting a woman who, while having handcuffs put on her, sinks to the ground in order to passively resist arrest. There is no wrenching of her arm, and the moment the cop readjusts to her new position on the ground he takes the other arm and puts it in the other cuff with no force and no resistance seen throughout. I've seen pain compliance holds (just watch any episode of "Cops", for pete's sake) and this was nothing of the sort.

I also saw a group of about 15 people aggressively confront the officer, screaming at him, pounding on drums, doing everything except physically touching him, in order to make his job difficult. This continues for the length of this particular clip, with people jumping in front of the car, running to the window to scream at the cops inside, people yelling "FUCK YOU!!" at the top of their lungs, and not moving out of the way. The cop, now stuck there for several minutes, turns his lights on, and people still don't get out of the way. Finally he inches forward, and drives off.

You monkeys make it sound like the cop drove off at high speed, purposefully aiming for the bike out of spite.

Look at how you guys act in this video- I seriously question the mental health of some of you, including dreadlock-dude at the end who decides to just do a little dance for fun.

But you are so intent on seeing every action that the police do as evil and corrupt that you won't even look at your own behavior. You were purposefully provoking them, and when something happened, you claim abuse. Just like you always do (ie: Norse and Ryan Coonerty, Argue and his anger issues).

This was a protest and a protection of our rights to assemble. The police cop was harrassing the woman for Public Intoxication. Which,
if you look up the law means unable to take care of themselves and/or could cause harm to others. This was not the case. The police were unlawfully arresting the woman for NOTHING in order to intimidate the Trash Orchestra who were supporting her in an unjust arrest. You don't know anything about activisim, do you.

If activism means provocation and then complaining about the inevitable results, then I know all about it (again, it's the common form of activism around Santa Cruz). I wasn't commenting on the overall protest, the desirability of some level of protection against those who abuse public spaces vs. freedom of movement and assembly, the level of nuisance the drum circle may present, etc etc.

My statement was about the directly provocative acts that these individuals took against an officer making an arrest. Did you/they really think that the cop was going to all of a sudden listen to your "reason" and take the cuffs off? No-- you were angry that one of your own was getting arrested, and decided to vent your frustrations in an aggressive manner. Then you/they surrounded the squad car. Then you/they jumped in front of it, screamed at them, cursed at them. And when he INCHED forward and somehow managed to run over property that was deliberately placed in front to keep them from doing their job, you cry FOUL!

That's what I'm talking about. Before you claim harassment, make sure there isn't a tape around to disprove you.

And the statement that the cyclist now feels threatened and that he's been targeted by the local police, puh-leese.

I'll identify your arrestee for you. It was Merry Mary, who had a Mai Tai too many. This shocking and violent incident doesn't shock nearly enough. Where's a taser when you need one? Miss Mary the Mirthful apparently couldn't stand up any longer and decided to sit down. The Santa Cruz cop, in contrast to his sharper brethren in LA (who would have billy-clubbed her for resisting arrest) accomodates her and then continues the arrest on the outstanding warrant.

As for the rest of it, I'm glad the video exists. It'll make it harder for Journalist Johnson to do her usual routine of concocting some preposterous story and then calling ASSNA to see if they'll give her an award.

Thanks for the laughs, though!

There was no report of an outstanding warrant.

Mary was not so intoxicated she couldn't take care of herself.

"Craig" and "Sum Dim" conveniently ignore these considerations.

Officer Kline engaged in obvious provocation by aggressively arresting someone who was no danger to anyone and who was reportedly released without charges.

My initial impression on seeing the actual event as I videoed it was that Kline was using a pain compliance hold that took Mary down; however on viewing the video, I agree with Craig that it looks less painful and compelling than I'd originally thought.

Still, why fuck with the drummers and steal the public spaces? That's the real issue here.

And if you want to get technical, why the bogus "public intoxication" arrest?

If Sum Dim has seen a warrant, how about posting it on line? Or explaining why it isn't mentioned in the Sentinel's crime report? Sum Dim's good at sneering and smearing, but not so hot at producing documents. No surprise.

There was no report of an outstanding warrant.

Mary was not so intoxicated she couldn't take care of herself.

"Craig" and Sum Dumdum conveniently ignore these considerations. Neither poster is addressing Kline's apparent misuse of the public intoxication law. Nor his bad judgment in charging into a crowd of people hostile to police attacks on the right to public assembly on previous Wednesdays.

It seems an obvious provocation and arrogant assertion of authority for Officer Kline to plow into a crowd to aggressively arrest a drummer who was no danger to anyone, with no apparent warrant, and who was reportedly released without charges.

My initial impression on seeing the actual event as I videoed it was that Kline was using a pain compliance hold that took Mary down; however on viewing the video, I agree with Craig that it looks less painful and compelling than I'd originally thought. The stupidity of the cowboy action seems to show that the SCPD is determined to exert authority come hell or high water.

That, of course, is what these laws are really about in the first place--expansion of police power. Either you abandon the public spaces by activating your own "inner police officer" or they will scare or drag you out of them.

Still, why fuck with the drummers and steal the public spaces? That's the real issue here.

And if you want to get technical, why the bogus "public intoxication" arrest?

If Sum Dumdum has seen a warrant, how about posting it on line? Or explaining why it isn't mentioned in the Sentinel's crime report? Sum Dumdum's good at sneering and smearing, but not so hot at producing documents. No surprise.

Video documentation speaks for itself, without the bogus commentary of Robert and his "journalist" girlfriend Johnson. Don't you hate that you can't invent a story to back up your juvenile view of the world, Robert?

I don't know if Margarita Mary could take care of herself, but it's no more the issue than the drummers are the issue. Drunk in public is just that. Drunk in public. They can, and apparently did, haul her away for it. No charges doesn't mean not drunk. It means she was a waste of time and resources. Like Robert and Becky.

I don't feel like doing research Robert. I'm not the one pretending to be Dan Rather, so I don't have to. I'll leave that to you and the award-winning Becky Johnson. I'll just keep picking apart your ridiculous positions. It's easy and it's free. What more could I ask for, huh?

That video highlights why so few people take you guys seriously.

Robert- just for the record, Craig is my real name (I notice you put it in quotes). I don't use my FULL name because, honestly, I don't feel like becoming a personal target for you and those who follow these forums. Let's be honest: not everyone is mentally stable, and while I applaud you in a way for posting under your name, it is also because you have made the conscious choice to be a public figure, and however much I disagree with your tactics and message I tip my hat to you on that account.

And I wasn't there at the event, so I can't swear to it, but if this woman (Mary, I guess is her name) did have a bottle and took a drink then she would be drinking in public. Do I know the exact civil code that makes that a crime? No. But I know that if I walked down the street swigging from a bottle of vodka (or whatever) I'd be stopped by the police, too.

To wade into the "drum circle good vs. drum circle bad" argument, which I was hoping to avoid: you ask "Still, why fuck with the drummers and steal the public spaces?" My counter is that the drummers stole the public space in this instance (and most weeks that this has gone on for years). That section of the parking lot is not for the farmers market- it's to park. And when a group takes over that space for their own use and gets in the way of the intended use, that's stealing the public space.

And you all (in the general, not HUFF-directed sense) made it public that this was an attempt to directly defy the cops and the law. When the cops came in, you expressed outrage that they would dare do so. Surprise, surprise.

Civil disobedience means that when you are confronted by law enforcement, you expect to be arrested/cited/whatever. Don't be surprised and outraged when it actually happens, or you just look like sad children who didn't get what they wanted.

Again, I didn't want to wade into all this over the many posts on the subject, but the headline of POLICE ABUSE, followed up by a video that shows nothing of the kind (and a bit of the opposite) was something I couldn't stand by and let slip through. Those are serious allegations which are, unfortunately, thrown around a lot in Santa Cruz and hence loose their meaning.

Craig:

Thanks for your candor in clarifying your name and acknowledging the possible flak that can come with becoming a "public figure" (though there are others who post with the full names--perhaps naively--who apparently don't share this apprehension or post in spite of it). Are you the guy on the bike circling me and shouting "asshole" at me yesterday at the Farmer's Market?

I wished you'd stayed to actually articulate your concerns. And you are still welcome to call in on Free Radio Santa Cruz tonight at 469-3119 between 6 and 8 PM to talk about the issue(s).

As I appreciate the rational (one might even say respectful) tone of your last comment, I'm glad to reply (rather than ignore or deprecate, as I'd advise people to do with other postings from trolls).

1. The heading of the article is "Allegations of Misconduct by Santa Cruz City Police". The video section is entitled "Video of the Arrest and Bike Incident". So, technically speaking, where do the words (in capital letters?) "police abuse" appear.

2. I don't think that most of the folks in the parking lot were practicing Ghandi-esque satyagraha (i.e. trying to shame authorities by having their violence redound against them) or even MLK "challenging unjust laws with jail terms". Rather they were remembering what the Coonerty Council has forgotten--the Constitution, the right to publicly assemble, and the traditional use of these spaces. Frankly, I think the community was just continuing its usual constitutionally-protected behavior, using the spaces peacefully and reasonably as they generally do.
Some of us were, indeed, saying that we won't tolerate misusing the local ordinances and the police force to impose a merchant/conservative staff agenda.
The police should not be enforcing unconstitutional laws. The politicians should not be making them. But most important the Community--the ultimate arbiter--most not accept them and pretend everything is okay.
It is a significant form of politician and police misconduct to accustom the community by fear and propaganda to accept day-to-day violations of basic rights (as Bush does nationally and Wilson-Skerry-Shoemaker-Cirillo do locally)
(For those who don't know Dick Wilson is City Manager, Howard Skerry is the police chief, Dannettee Shoemaker is head of Parks and Rec, and Ciel Cirillo is Redevelopment Agency Head; they run the City and are appointed for life. Coonerty is just a politician moving through).
Hence, while I think you are technically in error in using the words "abuse", in a deeper sense, you are on target.

3. The Definition of Penal Code 647 f Drunk in Public (from a DUI defense attorney website at http://www.southern-california-dui-defense.com/drunk-public.html):
California Penal Code 647 f makes it a misdemeanor to be drunk in a public place, or to be under the influence of drugs in a public place. However, the person must be so intoxicated that he/she cannot exercise care for his own safety or that of others. The Penal Code 647f offense is often referred to as “drunk in public,” “disorderly conduct,” “public intoxication,” or “under the influence in public.”
The California Penal Code 647 f statute reads:
“Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct,
a misdemeanor…Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor,
any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug,
controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his
or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence
of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating
liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk,
or other public way.”

What is “Public” for Penal Code 647f purposes? Penal Code 647f PC defines “public” as, for example, a city street, sidewalk, shopping mall, restaurant or nightclub—any place open to the public. California courts have also found that a person sitting in his parked car on a public street is in “public” for PC 647f purposes.
What does “drunk” or “under the influence” mean in the Penal Code 647f context? To be convicted of being “drunk in public,” the person must be very intoxicated. This does not mean someone who had a few drinks and is simply buzzed. Penal Code 647 f addresses someone who has become so drunk, or so intoxicated on drugs, that she can no longer care for herself. An example would be someone falling down drunk or someone passed out or about to pass out.

So the point here is that Santa Cruz police couldn't legally use this statute to arrest you for walking down the street swigging a vodka bottle. They could cite you for open container. Or if you were so drunk you couldn't take care of yourself. Neither of these things happened with Mary. And I was there, as you know.

4. Are you aware of any complaints presented about parking obstruction by drummers or those dancing in response to their sound? I'm not. I know that none were made at any of the Downtown Commission meetings that reviewed and forwarded this bad law. Nor at City Council. So--and I mean this seriously--if you can find any public records of such complaints, I'd like to see them. My experience is that cars are slowed a little, but not significantly interferwith in the parking lot. What's yours?

Thanks for expressing your concerns so clearly. I hope my response has been equally so.

Robert, my name is Sim Dum. Really. The same way yours is Norse. You can congratulate me later.

One of the things that makes all of this soooo funny is when y'all compare yourselves to Mahatma Gandhi (yes, that's the correct spelling) and Martin Luther King. I also love how you throw in some Sanskrit with Satyagraha and Ahimsa and all. Funny stuff.

You know, the mistake you keep making is in conflating your loony band of 20 or so drummer pals and the words "community" and "Santa Cruz". It's important to remember that the drummers themselves are the only people who give a good goddamn about their drumming. Everyone else (hereinafter referred to as "the community" or "the good and wise taxpayers of Santa Cruz") thinks they're a bunch of annoying juveniles who could use a wash, a spanking and a job.

Come join us on the dark side Robert. Paying taxes and being a contributing member of society is not so bad. Really.

The post above by Robert is very misleading. Robert is only talking about being drunk in public, but not talking about the drinking of alcohol in public. Robert knows this.

The following is clearly outlined by the city as to policies regarding the consumption of alcohol in public

The possession of an open container of alcohol in public is prohibited in the City of Santa Cruz for reasons related to public health, safety, and welfare.
This includes:

Santa Cruz Business District
All City of Santa Cruz Beaches
West Cliff Drive
All City Parks such as Harvey West, San Lorenzo Park, Derby Park, Oceanview Park, Frederick Street Park, etc.
All public schools.
The Boardwalk is private property and alcohol may be consumed on their premises. However, alcohol is not allowed on the sidewalk, on Beach Street, or on the surrounding beaches.

When stating a case for someone drinking in public it would be best for Robert to list all the restrictions and not only the ones that would back up what he wants to believe.

I know, an unimaginative title...

1.) No, that was not me screaming at you from my bike... I wasn't at the FM this week, in fact. And, while at times I feel like screaming at you, that's not my style. Although the mental image you present is a little funny (was it caught on camera!?!).

2.) As a corollary, I don't think I'd really ever want to engage with you face to face like that. Your style of writing and speaking are very different in some important ways. To be honest, the self-righteous tone in your voice drives me nuts, so I wouldn't be able to carry out a conversation with you (and might need to succumb to the aforementioned screaming). In print, I don't hear the smugness in your voice. I don't really mean that as an ad hominem personal attack, just a statement of fact from my perspective (anyone else?). In a sense, your way of discussing things in person, or on radio or tape or whatever, always appears to find a way to make the person answer impossible questions ("do you support eating babies or throwing them off of rooftops? Why won't you answer?!?!" and no, you've never said that, the quotes are for effect).

3.) Others have already posted re: public intoxication versus open bottle. And while this is a lot of he-said she-said, I still haven't seen any arrest record here that shows whether she was arrested for public intoxication or for open container or disorderly conduct or whatever. So the discussion is really moot in that sense. My personal belief, having not been there as you know, is that a bottle was drunk from. I can't see any reason why the cop in this case would lie about that in order to arrest one woman, who doesn't appear to be a ringleader from the video, and provoke the crowd. Yes, some in this forum will say it's because the man will keep you down in any way possible. But if that were the case, why not arrest one of the leaders of the protest and make up charges that will be dropped later and thus not need to be proven in court?

4.) I happen to think that this ordinance, as written, is a bad one. However, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the goal, which is to provide law enforcement with tools to be able to clear public spaces of bad people. By "bad", I mean the kind of folks you have already stated are unwanted (drug users and sellers, drunks, sexual predators, etc). Of course there will be selective enforcement, as there is selective enforcement of all laws, all the time. Officers don't ticket every single jaywalker they happen to see, for instance. However, it is illegal to jaywalk, and just because one can get away with it 9 times out of 10 doesn't make it any less so. Another example: speeding. How many in the forum truly go the speed limit or under at all times? I would guess no one (unless you're on a bike, perhaps!). But are you pulled over every time? No.

So selective enforcement is all around us. How to balance this subjective measure with public safety? That's where the argument is. I believe that your take on it is that the existing laws allowed for that, and the new laws only widen the net that law enforcement has to "select" from. It follows, in your argument, that the people who are now a part of this net are not necessarily law-breakers a la heroin pushers and will be unfairly targeted. Therefore, it is a law designed to harass homeless and other undesirables.

I think I got the jist of your thoughts, and if I'm off by a bit, my bad.

I, for one, think that downtown has gotten increasingly safer and more comfortable since I moved to Santa Cruz in 1996. Back then the University House (or whatever the building on the corner of Cathcart and Pacific where Taqueria Vallarta is now) was a large pit, and was a frequent hangout for "interesting" characters... in general, it was a free-for-all as far as homeless and panhandlers and others were concerned. I like the fact that I no longer feel unsafe downtown. I think most people do. But I recognize that there is a balance that needs to happen- my opinion is that the pendulum was swung way too far to the "anything goes" side back then. I don't think it's too far to the other side now (yet?) but this 15-minute law does make me feel that it's getting close.

So for once I can't trash your position and be dismissive. In a small way, I kind of understand the concerns put forth.

I got started on this post, as I've said before, to call a spade a spade. And you are probably right, the terms used were "police misconduct" not "police abuse". I still believe that it was not misconduct, and was blown out of proportion in the initial posting.

That's all I have to say about this subject.

In response to part of Craig's buried response:

Thanks for clarifying that you weren't the violent disruptor at the folks supporting the right to public assembly on February 6th in Parking Lot #4.

Thanks for your candor in honestly describing your negative reactions to me on the air (and perhaps less so in print). I'd encourage you to try and bring up the issues anyway on the air, but I can appreciate your reluctance to enter someone else's forum--particularly if you detest that person.

Regarding the propriety of Officer Kline's arrest of Mary on January 23rd, I don't know what was in his mind. But a custodial arrest for an open container infraction is unusual if not illegal. A misdemeanor arrest for a penal code 647f, on the other hand, which can be covered up by release the person from jail later without charges, does technically require the person not be able to take care of them selves (not merely have a bottle with them, even an open container)--as far as I read the ordinance (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/24/18474462.php?show_comments=1#18476137).

Why not go after protesters? First, they might get sued. Secondly they'll enrage and mobilize the community. Thirdly, they lose support from folks who think it's okay to abuse alcoholics, but not more middle-class or more musical assemblers.
Police and the Coonerty Council want this law to be self-enforcing. They want us all to internalize our fear of getting citations, however absurd and unconstitutional, and "police ourselves". If they are required to do it, it becomes costly, visibly repressive, and overtly selective.

It's easier I think police are reluctant to engage in confrontation in this lot (preferring to hassle folks singly in other lots and garages and at other times where they don't have to face media, a crowd, folks keeping an eye on the legal niceities, not to mention a Farmer's Market of folks next door). They were interested in sterilizing the lot--as shown by their previous successful dispersals of public assemblies there on December 26th, January 2nd, and January 16th. When confronted on January 9th, 23rd, 30th, and February 6th and 14th, they backed off.

It's the "keep the lobster in the cooking pot, by heating the water slowly" approach.

I don't agree with you that law enforcement should be given tools "to be able to clear public spaces of bad people". People committing crimes....yes, though I'm not a fan of Drug War prosecutions, which fill are jails and serve as a cash cow for the cops.

I agree with you that the "ordinance, as written, is a bad one". And I appreciate your acknowledging that.

Your analogy about selective enforcement being standard, necessary, and appropriate using the instance of jaywalkers and speeders is a false one. Jaywalking and speeding are crimes that arguably have some justification; criminalizing all socializing in public parking lots is not arguably criminal behavior. And when police selectively go after someone, it's not because they're lingering it a parking lot, it's because cops think they're "bad". When police on wheels do this, it leads to such things as racial profiling. Economic and lifestyle profiling is what happens when it's done under the Coonerty Parking Lot Panic law.

I think you recognize this. Cops don't selectively target only "bad" jaywalker and speeders; the reason they're selective is because they can't get every one or have other priorities. However, this isn't the case with the Parking Lot Panic Law. Show me a cop who'll ticket or hassle an elderly woman resting in a car for 16 minutes? Even if they have nothing else to do. No, the law was designed to be selectively enforced--and invidiously so. (Unless you believe it's okay to trust a police officer's judgment that some folks are "good" and some are "bad" in a parking lot)

I do think existing laws provide adequate options for police action and that new ones provide police with unhealthy powers and obligations. Moreover, it's not really about the police, but about people who want to be law-abiding and so abandon large swaths of public space. I think it's debatable whether this actually increases security. It certainly limits the community's options.

And,yes, based on the original parking attendant logs, the main problems (not "crimes") were homeless people taking shelter in parking garages at night and creating a mess (bathrooms being locked and all). So I do think the law was motivated by the desire to remove homeless people (in spite of the presence of other oppressive old-time ordinances like the Sleeping Ban).

Your subjective feelings about feeling "safer" downtown are, of course, relevant to your position. And to the discussion, since nobody wants to feel unsafe on the streets. Some of us feel unsafe because of the expansion of bad laws, the increased police budget, the unending drug war, the gentrification riptide, and increased community passivity and subservience to authority.

I appreciate your considering that perhaps the pendulum may have swung too far.

Thanks for your thoughts.

If the pendulum swung and brained Robert and his Rowdy Raconteurs, then it would have swung approximately the correct distance.