No perjury charges

[cluster]

Now it goes to IA...

http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...tives-who-lied

It should have never gone this far. What a cluster...

[Unregistered]

It's nothing more than a training issue.

[BOLO 2nd floor knightmare]

Debra Kaspar's written criminal investigation looked flowery and overly complex. The fact is -- it's a simple case. "Pretextual" traffic stops are legal, so everything derived from the stop is legal. The fruit of the poisonous tree does not apply here. Or if you want to really get fancy in your report, the "exclusionary rule" does not apply here. So now the criminal investigation is done. It's out of the way. There will be no criminal charges against SSO deputies. However, due to shared incompetence between the SAO, public defender and 2nd floor SSO management, it was ridiculous and a waste of time to put the credibility of the deputies through that investigative knightmare. A simple conversation between these incompetent players could have answered these important legal questions.

So next comes the IA when, in fact, it's nothing more than a "training issue." Every good lawyer and officer knows that officers do not have to disclose the secret identity of a CI. The only question is: "During a deposition, how does an officer keep the identity of a CI secret when he is asked direct or indirect questions pertaining to it?" That's a SSO management issue e.g. SSO management should have provided necessary training to officers on how to legally handle that issue. The deputies did not receive that training and they were obviously confused and they didn't do it by the book. You can't play by the rules if you don't know what the rules are. Knight and Hoffman cannot reasonably be expected to understand these kinds of cases because their miserable past (and their lack of training) speaks for itself.

All of this crap (the criminal investigation and the subsequently IA) could have been completely avoided with proper communication between the SAO, the public defender and SSO 2nd floor management. At a minimum, Brodsky should have understood these issues because he's certainly been on the job long enough, but politics clouded his biased judgement, so the deputies (and their credibility) were formally put through a criminal investigation. Knight and Hoffman cannot reasonably be expected to understand these kinds of cases because their miserable past speaks for itself. So now Knight and Hoffman have assigned MeRcUri0 to do a formal IA on the deputies -- and MeRcUri0 will ultimately conclude that it's just a training issue. Nothing more and nothing less.

You read it here first.

Watch your back and always keep 2nd floor management in front of you. The incompetence of 2nd floor management makes them extremely dangerous to every good LEO.

[Unregistered]

From the HT website:

I directly, specifically and intentionally asked every one of these officers if they had any intelligence or information regarding the vehicle before pulling it over. All said "NO". And they also testified, upon direct examination in an under oath deposition what the reason was why they went to the highway to do interstate interdiction." The under oath answer was: "because it was a slow day". The deposition transcripts are available.

1. Van Ness did not ask if there was a CI.
2. Officers are legally allowed to keep a CI "secret."
3. The only issue is teaching the deputies how, when or if to legally discuss the fact that there is a legal "secret."

[Unregistered]

The State of Florida has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of its Confidential Informants.

Simmons v. State, 887 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 2004)

[Unregistered]

The prosecution can't always keep the identity of an informant secret; a defendant who makes a good enough showing is entitled to it.

If a criminal defendant can show the importance of the CI’s identity to the case, it may be possible to find out who’s been talking to the cops.

After a defendant has made a motion to reveal the identity of a CI, the court will evaluate the circumstances and evidence in the case and then make a call about how important knowing the identity of the informant is to the defendant’s defense.

The court may also evaluate the extent to which the confidential informant was involved with the crime. If the CI directly witnessed or participated in the criminal activity, then ordinarily the court will order disclosure.

if a court orders disclosure and a witness refuses to name the confidential informant, then the court may strike the testimony of that witness or dismiss the case, so it’s worth the effort to try and find out who the confidential informant is.

[Unregistered]

The prosecution can't always keep the identity of an informant secret; a defendant who makes a good enough showing is entitled to it.

If a criminal defendant can show the importance of the CI’s identity to the case, it may be possible to find out who’s been talking to the cops.

After a defendant has made a motion to reveal the identity of a CI, the court will evaluate the circumstances and evidence in the case and then make a call about how important knowing the identity of the informant is to the defendant’s defense.

The court may also evaluate the extent to which the confidential informant was involved with the crime. If the CI directly witnessed or participated in the criminal activity, then ordinarily the court will order disclosure.

if a court orders disclosure and a witness refuses to name the confidential informant, then the court may strike the testimony of that witness or dismiss the case, so it’s worth the effort to try and find out who the confidential informant is.

During a depo, the deputy(s) should have simply asked for a recess and then asked the prosecutor (in private) what to do. During a trial, the officer would similarly ask to speak to the judge in-camera (or in private) and then the judge decides what to do. In this case, the deputy(s) did not bother to tell the prosecutor during the depo because the deputy(s) was not properly trained in how to handle the situation.

[Unregistered]

During a depo, the deputy(s) should have simply asked for a recess and then asked the prosecutor (in private) what to do. During a trial, the officer would similarly ask to speak to the judge in-camera (or in private) and then the judge decides what to do. In this case, the deputy(s) did not bother to tell the prosecutor during the depo because the deputy(s) was not properly trained in how to handle the situation.

It should have never gone this far but:

• Knight has never worked in narcotics (99% of his career is traffic enforcement).
• Hoffman has never worked the road (his claim to fame is making DUI arrests while working as a part-time CCSO deputy).

Since both Knight and Hoffman were clueless on how to handle this mess from the beginning, they allowed the deputies to be criminally investigated for perjury. Naturally, the deputies are "criminally cleared." If competence had reigned supreme from the beginning, then all of this could have been solved with simple conversations between Knight, Hoffman and Brodsky. Period. Instead, we have a public fiasco that makes it look really bad. In the end, Knight will claim that he’s keeping the agency clean by doing all of this, but the fact is that his lack of experience led to this exposure. Now comes the IA. Knight and Hoffman will now ensure IA removes the head of a low-level supervisor in the blame game.

[Unregistered]

The State of Florida has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of its Confidential Informants.

Simmons v. State, 887 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 2004)

QUESTION: When and how should confidential information be disclosed by LEOs during a recorded deposition? What is the official procedure?

[Unregistered]

It should have never gone this far but:

• Knight has never worked in narcotics (99% of his career is traffic enforcement).
• Hoffman has never worked the road (his claim to fame is making DUI arrests while working as a part-time CCSO deputy).

Since both Knight and Hoffman were clueless on how to handle this mess from the beginning, they allowed the deputies to be criminally investigated for perjury. Naturally, the deputies are "criminally cleared."

Boy, you are a special kind of stupid. If these guys don't know what to do, they should go back to patrol.

Perjury is NEVER an option. If you don't know how to use a CI, don't use one. Period.