Posts Tagged ‘South Lake Tahoe Police scandal’

Mike Barnhart beaten at Stateline by cops

Mike Barnhart beaten at Stateline by cops

Video surfaces of the Stateline, Nevada beating of Mike Burnhart by various law enforcement including South Lake Tahoe Police SLTPD, El Dorado Sheriff  EDSO and the Douglas County Sheriff. DCSO

According to Mike Barnhart, he was just shooting some video of the  Douglas County Sheriff blocking the road.

The cops falsely claimed there was a “crime scene” and attacked Mr. Barhhart. Somehow the South Lake Tahoe Police sltpdSLTPD, El Dorado Sheriff  EDSO got involved and Mike Barnhart was arrested and charged for obstruction and resisting arrest.

The whole thing is in the Justice Court, Judge Richard Glasson presiding, at the Stateline, NV courthouse.

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted: 11/27/2012

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Many states have similar “all-party consent” laws, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.

The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.

Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.police_brutality

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.'” And in fact, in that it strips police who make such arrests of their immunity from lawsuits, it’s an even stronger opinion. Of course, the police themselves rarely pay damages in such suits — taxpayers do.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren’t so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.

The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.

The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees.

Journalist Carlos Miller, who has been arrested multiple times for recording police, documents such cases on a daily basis. He has also documented countless cases in which police officers have deleted incriminating video from cell phones — a crime in and of itself.

(more…)

Dennis Justin

Dennis Justin admits guilt

Dennis Justin of the Justin Brothers Bail Bonds admits he was at the crime scene and makes the wild accusation Ty Robben is being investigated by SLTPD for “threatening” Governor Jerry Brown! This keeps getting crazy folks. Sit back and listen to this.

UPDATE: As of June 04, 2013 SLTPD confirms there was never an “investigation” into Ty Robben threatening California Jerry Brown, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval or anyone else. Just more perjury by Dennis Justin.

Okay, so now Vern Pierson’s statement “we have no proof,” that the guy was there. So now, the US Supreme Court demands that a “rational basis” for continued favoritism where certain favored individuals are not prosecuted, even when they admit “being responsible. Enquist v. Oregon was originated from the our circuit courts in Olech v. Willowbrook. The supreme court demands that officials no longer arbitrary enforced the law, especially when it violates the California constitution, Marcy’s Law, Article 28.

In the Placerville news story below, DA Vern Pierson and Bill Clark allege Dennis Justin was not at the scene-of-the-crime.

…Well, it looks like the truth has come out!

After Robben’s attorney spoke with the District Attorney’s Office, Robben revealed that the reason they are not prosecuted is that they “can’t prove Dennis Justin was here.” He said that Justin never denied it, however, and again pointed out that Justin allegedly admitted to slashing Robben’s tires. If there is no prosecution, Robben said, he will call for the resignations of Pierson and deputy district attorney Bill Clark, who is handling the case.

Richard Justin, brother of Dennis Justin, said that they would be unable to comment on the matter due to pending lawsuits. But, “the truth will come out,” he said.

mountain democrat

Man protests corruption outside courthouse, DA’s Office

IMG_20130520_131902A protest concerning possible corruption in El Dorado County was the result of what the organizer described as a kidnapping and assault by bounty hunters illegally trying to detain him.

Todd “Ty” Robben, a former IT worker for the Nevada Department of Taxation, was arrested after he supposedly harassed a member of the Nevada Department of Transportation. He said, however, that he was simply trying to serve her a subpoena.

“She was complaining she had not been personally served,” he said, so he went in person to do it. As a result, a district attorney in Carson City, Nev. charged him with assault and disturbing the peace.

The roles were seemingly reversed when bounty hunters showed up at Robben’s door, kicking it in, tasing him three times and slashing his tires, he claimed. (more…)

Lake Tahoe News covers South Lake Tahoe Police protest by Ty Robben.  We will updated this story with links to evidence, videos, pictures, court filings and police reports and correspondence.

See the story at http://www.mountainnews.net/201302/#/1

Lake Tahoe News covers South Lake Tahoe Police protest by Ty Robben
Lake Tahoe News covers South Lake Tahoe Police protest by Ty Robben

South Lake Tahoe Police protest

SLTPD police protest story 1SLTPD police protest story 2SLTPD police protest story 34

So-Lake-Tahoe-badge150The South Lake Tahoe police have been dragging out an investigation related to this writer since October 2012.  It’s going on 4 months.  The investigation centers on Justin Brother bailbonds (Justin Bros.) illegally crossing state lines from Nevada to Lake Tahoe, California to kidnap an alleged “fugitive”…

The SLTP and Sargent Josh Adler have until Friday January 25, 2013 to get the report done before we bring our famous CRIME SCENE banner to the South Lake Tahoe police Dept for an ANTI Corruption protest.

The “Bounty Hunters” failed to obtain a mandated California warrant pursuant to CA penal code 847.5 witch states:

If a person has been admitted to bail in another state, escapes bail, and is present in this State, the bail bondsman or other person who is bail for such fugitive, may file with a magistrate in the county where the fugitive is present an affidavit stating the name and whereabouts of the fugitive, the offense with which the alleged fugitive was charged or of which he was convicted, the time and place of same, and the particulars in which the fugitive has violated the terms of his bail, and may request the issuance of a warrant for arrest of the fugitive, and the issuance, after hearing, of an order authorizing the affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail.  The magistrate may require such additional evidence under oath as he deems necessary to decide the issue.  If he concludes that there is probable cause for believing that the person alleged to be a fugitive is such, he may issue a warrant for his arrest.  The magistrate shall notify the district attorney of such action and shall direct him to investigate the case and determine the facts of the matter.  When the fugitive is brought before him pursuant to the warrant, the magistrate shall set a time and place for hearing, and shall advise the fugitive of his right to counsel and to produce evidence at the hearing.  He may admit the fugitive to bail pending the hearing.  The district attorney shall appear at the hearing.  If, after hearing, the magistrate is satisfied from the evidence that the person is a fugitive he may issue an order authorizing affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail.

A bondsman or other person who is bail for a fugitive admitted to bail in another state who takes the fugitive into custody, except pursuant to an order issued under this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(more…)